3.6. Just transition
3.6 Just transition
Systems transitions have significant socio-economic and cultural impacts. If these effects have not occurred, sufficient systems transition is unlikely to have actually occurred. For example, the transition to a lower-carbon society will bring some livelihoods and culturally normalized practices to an end and create new types of jobs and everyday practices. Reforms require updating both our own activities and our skills. These changes also have well-being effects. It is therefore important to look at the impact of the sustainability transition also from the perspective of justice. When referring to the fairness of the sustainability transition or to related actions and research, just transition is a widely used term.
The just transition has received the most attention in the context of the energy transition. It has been integrated into policy agendas to phase out fossil fuel production such as the coal industry, as well as into agreements such as the EU's policy on green transition (European New Deal). The 2018 Climate Change Conference in Katowice accepted the first accompanying document of climate negotiations related to just transition, the Solidarity and Just Transition Silesia Declaration. The declaration coincided with the Katowice meeting in Poland, where the coal-based, carbon-intensive, so-called brown economy still constitutes a very significant part of the economy and the country is lagging behind most European countries in the low-carbon transition. In Silesia region (most of which is in Poland), the coal sector still employs around 17 000 people in the early 2020s and around 90 000 people in the entire Poland. As many other countries are already well into developing renewable energy technology solutions, it may be difficult for the energy sector in such a country to benefit from the positive economic and employment effects of this transition.
The basic idea of justice – that every human being deserves to be treated with equal dignity – is the underlying principle underpinning human behavior and morality. It also underpins the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Similarly, the concept of a Nordic welfare state is based on the idea of justice, on the desire to ensure that all members of society have equal opportunities to pursue a good life. The justice of the sustainability transition is a worthy goal in itself, when considered in light of the basic idea of justice. It would be difficult to call development sustainable if it reduces injustice while resolving environmental issues.
A just transition is also important for long-term social stability. If policies or the consequences of transition treat different groups of people very differently and, for example, heightens the accumulation of privileges and disadvantages, social exclusion or socio-cultural divisions, transition may shoot itself in the foot. Over time, growing social disadvantages can lead to a spiral of increasing social problems, lack of trust and dissatisfaction, and even to outright resistance to change, leading to a loss of the environmental gains that have been achieved. Resolving ecological crises in a sustainable way requires safeguarding social stability. Promoting just transition has therefore also been referred to as political risk management.
The idea of a just transition is sometimes used to refer mainly to the capacity of regions and workers heavily dependent on the fossil energy sector to survive the energy transition. Increasingly, however, a just transition means looking at the equity implications of the sustainability transitionfrom a broad perspective of society as a whole and of all relevant issues, including well-being effects. Next, we look at the promotion of just transition from both angles.
Electricity access is a key issue in the global energy transition and its justness. In sub-Saharan Africa, more than half a billion people live without electricity. Especially in rural areas, access to electricity is often poor. Photo of a village in Rwanda (Photo: Azuri Technologies, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.)
In discussions of transition, the position of fossil fuel workers has received particular attention, especially in the light of the coal industry's wind-down. The coal industry has been a large but regionally concentrated employer. The impact of winding down coal production is unevenly distributed: in most regions, there is little or no impact, but in coal areas, it means a massive loss of jobs. In the worst case, it can lead to a negative spiral in regional vitality, if unemployment multiplies as first the coal industry is winded down (tax revenues are reduced) and, as a consequence, purchasing power declines (customers of other companies are reduced, leading to increased difficulties for other companies and a further reduction in tax revenues). The future prospects of the area will be significantly worse, and the area will no longer attract new residents, but will, instead, experience an accelerated removal.
Since the early 1990s, approximately 410 000 coal industry jobs have been lost in EU countries, both as a result of a more general change in energy systems and climate action. In Germany and the Netherlands, losing of jobs in the sector began earlier, with the total number of more than 400 000 jobs lost in the two countries. The jobs that are disappearing in climate-unfriendly sectors are often low-education jobs. The green transition is creating new jobs in clean technology sectors, knowledge work and services. These jobs often require higher levels of education and vocational retraining. Changing jobs is therefore challenging. The closure of large production units can temporarily increase competition for the most accessible alternative jobs significantly.
For the reasons mentioned above, one of the main issues of justness in the sustainability transition is to improve the livelihoods of workers directly affected by the changes. Means to do so include subsidies for relocating for new jobs or vocational retraining, career guidance, early retirement schemes and, for large employers, workplace-based counseling. Consulting workers as part of the design and implementation of these support measures is also important for justness.
As for jobs, the main focus of a just transition has been on the energy transition, but the position of primary agriculture producers, particularly, is also an important issue. As we learned in the Food Transition section, the sustainability transition is revolutionizing agriculture, but due to prevailing inequalities, farmers often have weak resources to meet the demands for change, which may even mean giving up certain fields or animal production, or at least making significant investments in crop production and changes in farming practices. Given the problems of the current system, which leaves farmers with weak operational resources, justness requires that farmers are provided with the resources and support to implement the changes required to achieve the sustainability transition. Of course, sustainability transition will also shake up jobs and working life in many other sectors in the future, and it is not yet easy to assess all the upcoming upheavals.
In addition to the impact on jobs, the transformation will have many other consequences for people's well-being and opportunities. For the acceptability of environmental action and the fairness of the transition, it is important to consider the impact of the whole sustainability transition on society and on different groups of people from the perspective of justice. A key question is how people's opportunities to pursue well-being will change as a result of environmental policies.
Different groups of people may be socially vulnerable (susceptible and sensitive) to the side-effects of different climate policies, particularly because climate policies are so strongly linked to energy, which is central to all human life. The well-being impacts of environmental policies that protect biodiversity are more localized; we will discuss them a little later from the perspective of participation and consultation.
Particular attention needs to be paid to the basic requirements for the pursuit of well-being, such as energy and food security, basic material needs and the basic requirements for safeguarding health and mental health and inclusion (doing and acting with other people). Providing for basic needs is particularly crucial. As the majority of the environmental impact of consumption is related to energy use, mobility and food, the cost of meeting basic needs will almost certainly be raised by the policy instruments of transition. Such price increases are also likely to be necessary to control consumption, since the average person in high-income countries spends so little of their income on energy, transport and food that overconsumption and wastage of these goods is easy and happens almost by default. For lower income earners, however, increasing prices can mean a risk of energy poverty and food insecurity, or reduced inclusion if the cost of moving from place to place in everyday life is significantly reduced. This is why environmental policy needs to be backed up by strong social policies that ensure that low-income earners have opportunities to pursue their well-being.
The identification of issues relevant to a just transition is part of a research tradition rooted in the study of environmental justice in philosophy and social sciences. In 2022, an international group of scholars published a set of principles for a just transition. The principles cover all the areas that a just transition needs to take into account.
In addition to the elements of fairness that directly affect well-being (basic needs, livelihoods, environmental health), the principles emphasize the elements that are central to equal human dignity. These include pluralism (socio-cultural justice) that respects different lifestyles and values, consideration of global and future generational impacts, and support for the abilities of different actors to strengthen their capacity for change. It is important to consider global impacts so that, for example, climate action taken in one place does not cause social and ecological problems in another place far away. This was the case, for example, when the EU's biofuels strategy began to fuel palm oil production and even deforestation in countries with weak environmental regulation and low incomes. In 2020, almost a quarter of the biodiesel used in EU vehicles was palm oil (and the EU as a whole used more palm oil that year than China, for example). Since then, the EU has adopted a new Renewable Energy Directive, which includes a target to phase out palm oil-based fuels by 2030.
As stated, justice includes the equal right of people to pursue their well-being. From a planetary well-being perspective, this requirement extends to all life: the principles of a just transition also include impacts on nature and the rights of non-human animals. Means of sustainability transition must safeguard the potential for the well-being of non-human life, both for the wider systems and for non-human animals.
Animal issues are central, for example, to food production. From a climate point of view, all edible meat from terrestrial animals should, without question, be factory-farmed broiler meat. Consumption patterns have also been moving in this direction for a long time, so the call to replace red meat with bird meat would seem an easy route to significant reductions in emissions from the food system. However, from a planetary and animal well-being point of view, intensive production of broiler meat is a catastrophic system, and a switch from beef to broiler would enormously increase the number of animals forced into production conditions in the food system (see also the info box on animal production in the Food transition section). The farming process that is based on feeding broilers cheap forage is also a poor form of production in terms of biodiversity, while bovine farming can, under certain conditions, support habitats of endangered species (grassland grazing on traditional grassland biotopes). Planetary well-being as a perspective for a just transition therefore draws particular attention to the fact that the consideration of equity impacts should not be limited to human impacts alone, nor to climate impacts.
Even the best pathways to justice cannot be fully achieved in a transition. There are three main reasons for this:
- Today's society is so unjust and unequal at so many levels and scales that it is impossible to take into account all the current problems and the resulting vulnerabilities in decision-making.
- Systems transition involves systems so complex that the effects of the necessary means to promote transition can never be fully predicted or managed.
- Achieving sustainability transformation requires effective action in a time frame that does not allow time to find the most perfect possible solutions and, for example, ideal transition times for different activities in terms of justice.
The justness of a sustainability transition therefore means choosing the fairest possible route to a sustainable future from among those that lead to it quickly enough, and working towards it. Both public policy and business can also contribute to a fairer distribution of the benefits and drawbacks of transition. Transition policies can also use compensations to offset disproportionate disadvantages caused by environmental action. At the same time, achieving a sustainable transition must be a priority: the most unjust transition is a transition not made.
On the justness of decision-making processes: local consultation
Many emission reduction projects, policies and nature conservation measures have been criticized for being managed top-down: local concerns, perspectives, practices and cultural circumstances are ignored. This lack of consultation is unfair: local people have not had a say in decisions and processes that will affect their lives. For example, the creation of protected areas to protect species has been criticized for assuming that the best way of protection is to exclude certain natural areas from human use. This can be both ineffective from a protection point of view and can lead to local conflicts over livelihoods and social order, and in the worst cases to violence, when the lives and livelihood opportunities of certain groups of people are severely restricted on the basis of implementation plans and demands made from outside the community. Thus, the justness of decision-making processes is also of strategic importance for ensuring the long-term success of protection measures.
The importance of participation in climate change mitigation, for example, local consultation in renewable energy projects, is already well established in the social understanding. However, so far there is a lack of effective models for involving citizens and local groups in decision-making processes. There is a risk of a lack of genuine interaction (“let's hear but not listen”) and, on the other hand, of sustainability measures being watered down if the most vocal participants are the well-off and those who benefit from the status quo, or groups with other interests in opposing local solutions to the transition. It is therefore important to ensure equal consultation in the processes. For example, ignoring local inequalities and power relations can lead to a situation where “neutral treatment” of different groups (where no group's views or situation are given separate attention) reinforces existing inequalities and power structures. Plans of adaptation to climate change have also been criticized for being technocratic and for emphasizing managing: inequalities at the local level and their impact on the challenges experienced by different groups and the distribution of the benefits and costs of adaptation are not given sufficient attention.
Citizens' panels in support of environmental policy
Public participation in decision-making on sustainability transition has increased at many levels during the recent decade. More interactive methods, such as citizens' panels, citizens' councils and citizens' assemblies, have become increasingly popular, while one-way communication and opinion polling (briefings or surveys) have faced growing criticism. In particular, citizens' panels related to climate action exist in Europe, both at national and city level, and the European Green Deal also emphasizes participation in climate action. A panel or assembly can be a temporary or more permanent procedure. The assignments can range from very general (recommendations for climate action at national level) to very limited (a panel from the local community to guide a wind power project or, for example, a panel of pupils assembled to assess the sustainability measures of school catering that the pupils prefer).
One reason for involving citizens in the planning of climate action is to increase public acceptance of climate action. In France, for example, The French Citizens Convention for Climate, established in 2019, was largely born as a reaction to the Yellow Vest Protests movement. In November 2018, hundreds of thousands of French people rallied against President Macron's policies, including a proposed fuel price increase, and demonstrations continued almost weekly until early 2020. The Citizens Convention, created in 2019, met seven times over several days with the aim of reaching a vision on acceptable means to reduce GHG emissions by 40% by 2030. The 150 participants were selected at random from different population groups. The Convention submitted 149 recommendations and selected three proposals for a referendum. The recommendations influenced the Climate and Resilience Law, enacted in 2021. In the political process, the recommendations were watered down: the Convention and researchers concluded that the final law did not adequately reflect the spirit and proposals of the Convention. On the other hand, the ban on short domestic flights in France from the beginning of 2023, for instance, was the result of the Convention. The French example shows how those in power can ultimately override the well thought out views of citizens. On the other hand, the recommendations generated by a broad public consultation send a signal to decision-makers that these measures are widely approved of, which reduces political risk and can therefore also contribute to the popularity of climate action among decision-makers.
So far, citizens' assemblies have rarely addressed issues related to nature. The Factor research project organized a Forest Jury in Lapland in 2022, which resulted in a public opinion on the use of Lapland's forests in a just and climate-responsible way. From a pool of over 200 people interested in jury work, 33 members were selected to represent different regions, age groups and educational levels. The jury worked together over two weekends. The work of the jury provided an advisory input to the green transition section of the Regional Council of Lapland. More information about the Lapland Forest Jury and its input can be found on the Factor research project page .
Achieving a successful panel or assembly requires investment in selecting participants, planning working methods and communicating activities and objectives. The diversity and representativeness of the participants is important for the acceptability of the panel. Selecting the most active volunteers or, for example, composing a panel partly of policy makers and partly of citizens can lead to criticism of bias and doubts about the panel's purpose. It is also important that participants are given a realistic picture of the purpose of the panel. Expectations that are too high can even exacerbate mistrust in decision-making and participation, when the work or its impact does not match expectations at all. Often panels do not get their proposals through directly, as in the current system power and established practices can override genuine participation. The impact of panels can then be more significant in an indirect way: they raise awareness, acceptance and leverage to promote sustainability actions in public policy.
Energy democracy
At the heart of energy democracy are demands for social and environmental justice, and criticism of the current fossil fuel and nuclear based, centralized, oligarchic corporate-level energy system. Energy democracy calls for a decentralized, democratized energy future based on renewable energy sources managed by citizens and communities, where energy policy power belongs to workers, households, communities and the public sector. Energy democracy thus emphasizes the role of people as citizens rather than consumers and defines energy goods and supplies as public, shared resources. From an energy democracy perspective, the energy transition must therefore take into account not only the environmental crisis and tackling climate change, but also other values, such as equity between people.
The debate on energy democracy also often highlights the contradiction between the values related to the well-being of nature and humans. The mainstream discourse on energy policy includes the view that democratic decision-making is too slow to mitigate climate change. There are plenty of examples of how democratic processes have slowed down efforts to increase renewable energy around the world, including in Finland. Particularly in the case of wind power, local residents have, for example through appeals procedures, slowed down or prevented the construction of wind turbines. These controversies are worth noting, but not the whole story citizen participation. In renewable energy projects, engaging local residents in decision-making and including them as shareholders in wind farms will reduce the experience of inconvenience and, consequently, the number of complaints. Germany's energy transition – the "Energiewende" (see Section 2.3) – shows that citizen-owned energy can play a crucial role in the energy transition.
Other reasons for democratizing the energy system are often cited, both practical and normative. Greater citizen involvement in decision-making introduces local knowledge and nuances that are not recognized by technocratic centralized decision-making processes. In addition, greater participation increases the possibility of making decisions for the common good. From a normative, i.e. rule- and decision-making-related point of view, the rationale for enabling participation is simple: people must be able to influence the decisions that affect them. Energy democracy thus paints an ideal future of an energy system in which citizens are energy consumers and producers who benefit from and are interested in energy policy, and guard the accountability of energy policy and energy production. The key to energy governance is the broad participation of informed and responsible citizens in decision-making on energy choices that aims for the common good.
Photo by Jet Reyes, Pexels.
Would you like to comment something on this section? Voluntary.