Alex McLaughlin - climate justice researcher
By Fiona Breucker
Alex McLaughlin is a research associate at the center for the study of existential risk at the University of Cambridge. In this role, he attempts to illuminate and address the moral questions that arise at the intersection of global justice and existential risk. His current project aims to provide a normative framework for thinking about claims to a scarce global carbon budget, taking into account both widespread noncompliance with obligations towards climate change and the existential risks associated with severe climate impacts. With a background in political philosophy, he was previously a Leverhulme Doctoral Scholar in Climate Justice at the University of Reading. We spoke to him about climate justice during a global pandemic, the intersection of anti-racism and climate justice movements and different action strategies to fight climate change.
Fiona: How and why did you become a climate justice researcher?
Alex: I’ve been really lucky to have become a climate justice researcher. I first encountered the idea of climate justice when sitting in a global ethics course, in the final year of my undergraduate degree. I had to write an essay on whether the costs of mitigation and adaptation should track historical responsibility for climate change, and I was struck by the complexity of the issue, which had initially struck me as uncomplicated, and by the clarity and sophistication of the arguments philosophers presented. Partly off the back of this essay, I decided to stay in Southampton for a masters in global politics. After that, I got lucky again: Catriona McKinnon, at the University of Reading, won a grant from the Leverhulme to fund 15 PhD projects on various aspects of climate justice. Being part of that programme was great. Rather than studying as a lone climate justice researcher, as many do, I was part of a community, and this brought with it a whole range of opportunities.
Fiona: What exactly is climate justice in your opinion?
Alex: This is a tricky question! My inclination is that we shouldn’t get too bogged down in trying to think about a definition of climate justice. There are some academic strategies for breaking down this concept – climate justice requires a fair distribution of the costs of mitigation and adaptation, say, and fair and open procedures for the participation of different stakeholders – but these probably don’t do a good job of capturing everything that climate justice means to people. If we want to answer a specific or technical question, or address a particular disagreement, then it might be important to clarify what we mean when we say ‘climate justice’. At least that way we are more likely to avoid talking past one another. But more generally, I suspect we should avoid stipulating a definition which might exclude certain perspectives, especially when climate justice is currently such a prominent political issue.
Fiona: Which questions nourish your interest in climate justice, and what do you consider most important in the realm of climate justice?
Alex: I’ve always been interested in questions of distributive justice and climate change, that is, questions about how we ought to fairly divide the costs of climate change within and between generations. For example, are responsibilities for responding to climate change grounded in historical responsibility or ability to pay, or perhaps something else again? Or, how much of the global sink capacity is each person or state permitted to use? Do people have an equal right to emissions? My PhD thesis took up these questions, which are some of the most established and fundamental in the field.
As for what’s most important for climate justice, I think this has shifted in recent years. More specifically, there are two issues that stand out to me. First, the recent waves of climate activism seem to demand attention. After decades of climate inaction, the high-profile protests of, for instance, Fridays for Future and Extinction Rebellion have galvanised discussions about climate change and have been really encouraging. As a climate justice researcher, I think these developments raise a number of important questions about how people are obliged to respond to the distinctive demands made by the different movements, and indeed about the types of action participants can permissibly engage in when resisting climate injustice. Second, and relatedly, questions about noncompliance have become central to climate justice as more and more of the carbon budget has been exhausted. We are increasingly understanding the scale of the risks associated with exceeding the carbon budget for 1.5°C, and this really raises the stakes. One especially powerful concern is about the implications of this inaction for global development: how can we ensure that access to the remaining carbon budget goes to those who most need it? And what actions must developed states take in order to facilitate poverty alleviation which does not rely so heavily on the carbon budget?
I think these are two of the central issues for climate justice at the moment. I’ve just started a new project at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, at Cambridge, which will try and speak to both of them.
Fiona: What is your take on local vs. global action against climate change?
Alex: This is an interesting question. From a pragmatic point of view, we ought to pursue both local and global climate action – the more the better! There is a further question, though, about where our emphasis should lie. In my view, given the power vested in states and multinational corporations, our focus should be on the global. But anyway, this conviction does not side-line the need for local action; instead it might just change how we think about it. For instance, although all of us can take steps to live in a more sustainable way, it may be that we should think about our responsibilities in the face of climate change more broadly, incorporating the political actions we might take. In other words, perhaps we should engage in climate activism in addition to reducing our own carbon footprints. This is the sort of view that the climate movements mentioned above have articulated so well.
Fiona: How does the current global pandemic influence the fight against climate change and which aspects do you consider to be risks or opportunities from a climate justice perspective?
Alex: The pandemic will certainly be a catalyst for significant change, and in principle this change could be harnessed in a climate friendly way. Our record on climate change so far, however, gives us reason to be sceptical about this prospect. I worry that governments will turn the familiar as they attempt to stimulate the economy, and the familiar is of course fossil fuels. Indeed, I think we are seeing evidence of this trend already.
Fiona: Does the current wave of anti-racism movements influence the fight for climate justice?
Alex: Definitely. Climate justice movements, just like any other, raise many questions about race, and I think more could be done to acknowledge this. Whenever climate justice activists appeal to a better and more just future, for example, we need to make sure that this vision is appropriately sensitive to the ongoing struggle against racism. I also think climate movements need to be more inclusive. Already there have been important criticisms of the diversity of certain groups and of the appropriateness of their protest strategies for people of different racial backgrounds. I do believe, though, that climate justice and anti-racism movements pursue compatible goals, and this should at least be cause for optimism.
Fiona: If the world leaders decided to consult you on one specific measure that should be taken to fight climate change, what would you tell them?
Alex: One thing I’ve been thinking a lot about recently is how young people, who currently fall below the minimum voting age, might be included in the political institutions that produce environmental policy. After all, the young have a huge stake in climate change, which will affect their lives in a way that it won’t for the adults who are currently making the decisions. Perhaps this isn’t specific enough – my research is in political philosophy after all! – but I would encourage leaders to open avenues for children to have a genuine say on the policies that will have such a significant effect on them. The hope is that this sort of procedural move would not just produce one good decision but would create generally better outcomes over a period of time.
Fiona: Thanks a lot for your time and interesting insights Alex! All the best for your new research undertaking!