Sorry, but this article seems a bit silly; they equate not having heard the term “climate justice” with not understanding it.

I hadn’t heard of the term before, but already understood the bits it encompasses when they explain what it means.

I just think it’s misleading to say that people don’t understand it, when they’re probably just not up to date on the buzzword.

The concept of victims not understanding justice strikes me as very disingenuous. Its not their understanding of our concept of climate justice that entitles them to assistance, recompense, and yes, to the extent possible, ensuring that those who are responsible for these disasters are the ones footing the bill.

It is ironic that research tends to be limited to what people in more affluent regions believe about climate change and climate justice. Citizens of frontline i.e. climate-vulnerable countries, are largely confined to being the subjects of climate discourse, as opposed to active participants. The unbalanced discourse matches the inequalities that characterize climate change itself.">

How is this ironic? Climate change is due to the actions of people in more affluent regions, it is the actions and attitudes of these people that need the most change, whilst people in vulnerable countries are subject to climate changes they have little to no effect on. Unfortunately many of those affluent people refuse to take any responsibility, instead claiming to be subject to the whims of big business and the super rich, as opposed to active participants. Climate justice is a nice thought but it's not going to happen.