Climate Justice vs Environmental Justice: Fairness in Bearing Environmental Burdens

Both ideas ask the same question: who bears the burden of environmental harm, and who gets the benefit? Environmental justice asks it about pollution, resources and ecological harm in general, usually within a country and often at the level of a community. Climate justice asks it about climate change specifically, at a global and intergenerational scale: those who contributed least to emissions, poor countries, poor communities and future generations, suffer most. Climate justice is best understood as a specialised branch of environmental justice.

1. Environmental Justice

Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, class, caste or income, in environmental laws, decisions and their effects. It has three dimensions: distributive (a fair share of burdens and benefits), procedural (participation, information and access to justice) and recognition (respect for the identity and knowledge of affected communities). The movement began in the United States with protests against a toxic landfill in Warren County (1982) and led to Executive Order 12898 (1994). In India, it is rooted in Article 21 (right to a healthy environment), Articles 14, 39(b) and 48A, the Forest Rights Act, 2006, public hearings under the EIA Notification, and Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration. Leading instances include the Bhopal gas tragedy, Orissa Mining Corporation v. MoEF (2013, the Niyamgiri case, where gram sabhas decided on bauxite mining), and the NGT's work on pollution in poor neighbourhoods.

2. Climate Justice

Climate justice holds that the burdens of climate change and of responding to it should be shared fairly, in light of historical responsibility, capacity and vulnerability. Its legal expression is the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC) in Article 3(1) of the UNFCCC; equity and the differentiation of obligations; the duty of developed countries to provide finance, technology and capacity building (Paris Article 9; the new collective quantified goal of at least USD 300 billion a year by 2035); loss and damage (Paris Article 8 and the Fund agreed at COP27); and intergenerational equity. The Paris Agreement's preamble notes the importance for some of the concept of 'climate justice'. Courts have taken it up in climate litigation: in M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court recognised a right against the adverse effects of climate change under Articles 14 and 21, noting the disproportionate impact on vulnerable communities; and the ICJ advisory opinion of July 2025 affirmed that States have obligations under climate treaties and general international law.

3. Key Differences

4. Relationship

The two overlap heavily. Climate change amplifies existing environmental injustice: the poor living on floodplains, coastal fishers, farmers and outdoor workers exposed to heat are hit hardest. Both rely on the three dimensions of justice (distribution, procedure, recognition), both draw on human rights and equity, and both demand the participation of affected communities. The difference lies in scope and scale: climate justice adds the international dimension of historical emissions between countries and the temporal dimension of future generations. India invokes climate justice internationally (CBDR, finance) while its courts apply environmental justice domestically.

5. Related Topics and Provisions