What ‘climate justice’ can, and should, mean
The environmental movement has long struggled with the question of where it’s positioned on social issues . The Sierra Club is notorious for its historically racist and xenophobic policies, which has fed into modern-day ecofascist rhetoric. Meanwhile there has been a recent increase in popularity of so-called intersectional environmentalists, who see the battle for climate and social justice as one and the same fight. With this variety of voices, it seems fair to say that the movement has a tricky history surrounding the issue.
I’ve witnessed this same debate occurring in Extinction Rebellion (often referred to as XR), as the movement grows, learns and, I guess somewhat naturally, argues. Of course, the debate is different in each context, and I’ve only witnessed it within the Dutch group, but ultimately there seems to be a few core arguments that are bandied around one central question: Is XR, and the environmental movement, part of a broader progressive social movement. In other words, are we left wing?
Weirdly enough, basically everyone can agree that, to some extent, we are. Climate breakdown is happening due to the conception of the world’s resources as infinite and exploitable, with the same driving mindset as that of colonialism — instead of invading South America for gold, the West is now invading the Middle East for oil, with no intention of a) slowing down or b) treating locals with any shred of dignity. On top of this, there is the fact that countries that have the lowest levels of historic pollution, as well as often the least influence on the global stage, are the countries that will be hit hardest by the effects of global heating. It goes without saying that these countries are predominantely populated by indigenous people and people of colour. Women are worst affected by natural disasters, as are the poor, the disabled, and the vulnerable. Those without proper state protections will likely be left out in the cold — or the heat. The issues of social justice and climate justice are inextricably linked.
So why don’t we say this?
A key argument that returns time and again is that of outreach — framing the environmental movement as part of a broader movement for social justice means that only those already attracted to such movements will likely join the cause of climate justice. It is, of course, somewhat of a stumbling block, but it shouldn’t be seen as insurmountable.
First of all, the demographic of young, educated, socially aware people are amongst the groups becoming most influential in contemporary politics. From the decolonising of curricula to the increasing recognition of LGBTQ+ rights, activists are actually doing quite a good job at pushing their agendas. These people are changing the world already — lets get them onboard, and do so by speaking their language.
Secondly, discussing inter-related social justice issues doesn’t mean that everybody has to be passionate about all of them. My mum’s XR affinity group (a group of like-minded people who do activism together) held a Black Lives Matter (BLM) rally in their local village, and it got a lot of support. Meanwhile, BLMUK’s social media was tweeting about the rights of black, trans sex workers. My mum is absolutely on the progressive side, but I can’t imagine that she held the rally with this specific group in mind. We shouldn’t underestimate the ability of a social movement to hold an enormous range of perspectives; in fact, it’s what has historically given them so much influence.
Another argument is that we should stay above the ‘culture wars’ of intersectionality, justice, and populism. And I agree! Culture wars are stoked by media that tries to create a dichotomised narrative in order to get more views, clicks, comments or whatever interactions they monetise most heavily. They over-simplify issues, making once-serious arguments a spectacle for the viewer, and dehumanise the struggles they’re meant to be about. But that doesn’t mean that social justice can’t be discussed at all. The environmental movement can in fact become one of the leading lights of the progressive movement in showing what an informed, lively debate on social issues can look like, instead of a tribalist standoff between opposing camps.
Lastly is the argument of confusing the messaging — if we want to be taken seriously about climate change, lets talk about climate change, not about a plethora of other issues. Any PR expert will say the same. And so would I. Keeping a simple message can be key to success.
Again, let’s consider Black Lives Matter. Everyone will agree that it’s a racial justice group. And yet at the same time, people understand that it’s informed by intersectional feminism, is pro-LGBTQ+ rights, and in favour of enormous reform to the police and judicial system. BLM are an example of how a movement can both have a simple message, yet also be entrenched in a wider debate.
So let’s join them in this moment. Now is a time where the environmental movement can say strongly that we stand with causes for social justice, we know how are struggles are connected, and we will ensure that the solutions we offer help further the cause not just of a narrow idea of environmentalism, but the cause for a brighter, greener, and fairer future for all.
