5. Climate Justice | Who Causes Climate Change and Who Pays for It

This is the 5th post in Environmental Law, Unit I — earlier posts explained what climate change is; this post asks a different question: who is responsible for climate change, and who suffers most from it.

The Problem This Topic Solves

Climate change does not hurt everyone equally. Countries and communities that emitted very little greenhouse gas — small island states, coastal fishing villages, farmers on dry land, the urban poor — often face the worst floods, droughts and heat. The richest countries and companies, which produced most of the historical emissions, are better able to protect themselves. Climate justice is the idea that the legal and policy response to climate change must correct this imbalance rather than repeat it.

Meaning of Climate Justice

Climate justice (the principle that the burdens and benefits of climate change and climate action must be shared fairly) treats climate change as a question of rights, fairness and equity, not only as a scientific or technical problem. It asks three things: who caused the problem, who is hurt by it, and who should bear the cost of fixing it.

Dimensions of Climate Justice

• Distributive justice — the costs of climate change and of climate action must be shared fairly. Those who contributed least and can least afford protection should not carry the heaviest load.
• Procedural justice — affected people, especially the poor, indigenous communities and women, must be able to take part in climate decisions, access information and approach courts.
• Intergenerational justice — present generations hold the planet in trust for future ones. This is the idea behind intergenerational equity (the duty to leave the environment in a fit state for future generations).
• Corrective (remedial) justice — those who caused the harm should help repair it, and victims should receive support for the losses they suffer.

Legal Foundations

The idea of climate justice appears in the international climate treaties through three connected principles:

• Common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) — all States must act, but developed countries carry a larger share of the duty because they emitted more in the past and have greater resources. This is written into the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992 (UNFCCC) and carried into the Paris Agreement, 2016.
• Finance and technology support — developed countries agreed to support developing countries with money and technology for reducing emissions and for adapting to climate impacts.
• Loss and damage (harm that countries suffer from climate impacts which cannot be avoided by adaptation) — recognised in the Paris Agreement and, at the climate conference at Sharm el-Sheikh in 2022, countries agreed to set up a fund to help vulnerable countries with such harm.

Climate Justice in India

India has no single climate statute, so climate justice reaches Indian law through the Constitution and through general environmental principles. The Supreme Court reads the right to life under Article 21 to include a healthy environment. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, the Court accepted sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle as part of Indian environmental law. These principles carry the same idea of fairness that climate justice relies on. In 2024, in M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised a right against the adverse effects of climate change as part of the rights to life and equality under Articles 21 and 14.

India also argues at international forums that developing countries need room to grow and need financial and technology support, which is the CBDR principle applied to its own position.

• Climate justice means fairness in who causes climate change, who suffers from it and who pays for the response.
• Its four dimensions are distributive, procedural, intergenerational and corrective justice.
• The legal anchor in treaties is CBDR (UNFCCC, 1992; Paris Agreement, 2016), together with finance, technology support and loss and damage.
• In India it works through Article 21 and the principles of sustainable development, precaution and polluter pays.

• Developed countries pledged to mobilise 100 billion US dollars a year for developing countries; how much has actually been delivered and whether it is enough is still disputed.
• Loss and damage is different from adaptation: adaptation prevents harm, while loss and damage deals with harm that has already happened or cannot be avoided.
• The Supreme Court in M.K. Ranjitsinh (2024) linked climate impacts directly to fundamental rights, a step beyond treating climate change only as policy.

A Practical Example

Consider a low-lying coastal village whose land is turning saline because of rising seas, while its people have almost no carbon footprint. Climate justice says this village should not be left to cope alone. It supports funds for relocation and adaptation, a voice for villagers in planning decisions, and a larger share of the cost falling on the high-emitting countries and industries that contributed most to sea-level rise.

Quick Revision Points

• Climate justice: fair sharing of the causes, burdens and benefits of climate change and climate action.
• Four dimensions: distributive, procedural, intergenerational, corrective.
• Treaty basis: CBDR in UNFCCC (1992) and Paris Agreement (2016); finance and technology support; loss and damage fund agreed in 2022.
• Indian anchor: Article 21 healthy environment; Vellore Citizens principles; M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024) recognising a right against adverse effects of climate change.
• Do not confuse: adaptation (preventing harm) vs loss and damage (harm already suffered).