IDEAS trickle down, but are not always well understood.
One of the benefits of the press, and public writing, is its power to educate and explain. This democratises ideas so that every cook or sanitation worker can connect to global as much as local issues and decide how we should be governed.
Newspapers play a crucial role in such public education. They are accessible to the woman and man on the street. What is printed can be easily circulated, building an imagined community that shares understanding of our place in the world and our political positions on world issues.
Last week, I wrote about wrangling over climate change. This week, I’m explaining the idea of justice in climate action. We hear words like "climate justice" without an exact sense of what they mean. Intersections between climate justice and gender justice are often even less well understood.
When speaking about justice in climate action, first consider procedural justice. It matters how decisions to tackle climate change are made. The procedure or process must be inclusive, fair, accountable and transparent.
Dominant countries should not decide for everyone else and should not hold back decisions that others, such as the Maldives or Barbados, or groups such as the indigenous people of Brazil, are demanding.
Rural mothers whose families have been devastated by drought and small farmers devastated by floods should be at the table and able to shape outcomes, challenging both the power of the elite and a status quo that leaves the most defenceless at their mercy.
Imagine how different decisions in Trinidad and Tobago would be if they were not so secretive and top-down.
Whether locally or globally, women are least at that table. Think of our Parliament.
Men’s domination of decision-making is part of why we are here today. It gets worse when measured globally. Gender justice aims for those most subordinated by our ideals of manhood and womanhood to have an influential say. Without it, procedural justice goes merely halfway.
A second dimension is distributive justice. This means taking into account how different groups benefit or suffer from the effects of climate change. It also means some have more responsibility than others.
Money has to flow from those who created these problems toward those who are unequally and unfairly affected by loss and damage. It’s a global version of "tax the rich to stem the oncoming suffering of the poor."
At COP27, a 39-nation alliance of small island states is championing a ten per cent windfall tax on oil companies to compensate developing countries for climate-change-induced disasters.
“While they are profiting, the planet is burning,” said Antigua and Barbuda’s president Gaston Browne, justifying this "polluters pay" principle. The demand is for reparations to those who will be made homeless and impoverished as the world crosses an irreversible climate cliff.
How this money is spent on climate mitigation, green technologies and decent green jobs can easily exclude women, just as their unem
