Across Europe, the climate movement is dominated by middle-class white people, whether one looks to informal “people’s movements” collectives, such as Extinction Rebellion and Fridays for Future, or nonprofit organizations, such as those united under the “Green 10” coalition. Inevitably, the interests of white, middle-class people determine the movement’s priorities and activities.
One of the climate movement’s dominant narratives is that the climate crisis is to affect young people over the course of their lifetimes, and that action today is necessary to save the planet for future generations. That, no doubt, is true.
However, the climate crisis and the emissions that are causing it are already killing people, and not only in Pakistan, where flooding this summer took at least 1,300 lives, or in Latin America, where researchers estimate that extreme temperatures caused about 900,000 deaths in major cities between 2002 and 2015. People are also dying in Europe, but the issue has not received nearly enough attention.
Consider Ella Kissi-Debrah, a nine-year-old black girl living in Lewisham, southeast London, who died in 2013 following repeated asthma attacks caused by air pollution. Her mother, Rosamund, had to fight a long legal battle for her daughter’s cause of death to be officially recognized.
However, she eventually prevailed, and Ella became the first person in the world to have air pollution listed on her death certificate. A recent legislative proposal — “Ella’s Law” — aims to establish access to clean air as a human right in the UK.
As Ella’s story demonstrates, environmental conditions are not experienced equally across our societies. Studies conducted in the Netherlands, the UK, France and Germany have shown that polluting industries are more frequently located in cities and neighborhoods with higher proportions of migrants. This is the human cost of air pollution. It is no coincidence that mothers and children from marginalized communities have long been at the forefront of the fight against it.
Heatwaves, too, tend to have a disproportionately larger effect on the poor and people of color. In 2019, the UN rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights warned of “climate apartheid” as deadly heat is hitting these people the hardest.
There is also an undeniable link between the effects of the climate crisis and other manifestations of social inequality, such as those involving housing, social protection and living conditions. According to a report from the European Environmental Bureau, Europe’s Roma communities often live on polluted land that is excluded from basic services such as running water or sanitation — a clear case of environmental racism.
Similarly, people with disabilities are more likely to suffer from climate change, as an Austrian with a form of temperature-dependent multiple sclerosis showed in a recent court case against the Austrian government. The list could go on.
It is clear that the climate movement in Europe has failed to reflect the experiences and perspectives of those who are already bearing the brunt of climate-driven damages. Instead, most big non-governmental organizations seem to have convinced themselves that it is sufficient to adopt buzzwords such as “decolonization.”
While some might see it as progress that language long used by grassroots organizers to expose oppressive power dynamics is finally going mainstream, could we also be witnessing yet another instance of appropriation by white-dominated organizations?
Rather than paying lip service to marginalized communities, the climate movement needs to shift its focus toward understanding and addressing all the ways the climate crisis is fueling and creating new forms of inequality and injustice. That would take more than a change in terminology and investments in diversity, equity and inclusion. The movement needs a shift in the composition of its dominant players. That is the only way fully to acknowledge, learn from and build on the work that people of color have been doing for decades to tackle environmental issues.
These frontline activists, organizers and community advocates need support, tools and resources to continue their work. That is something that big climate organizations can help with — but only if they can resist the urge to co-opt grassroots narratives and hog center stage.
To ensure that this planet remains livable for everyone, more ways to prevent climate-driven harms need to be found by following those who have already been suffering from, and fighting against, climate injustices. If we can do that, future generations would have far less to worry about.
Nani Jansen Reventlow is a human rights lawyer and founder of legal advocacy group Systemic Justice.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then