Abstract: This research article investigates the fundamental principles of environmental responsibility and their role in facilitating the shift towards a sustainable future. It explores the intricate web of individual actions, corporate strategies, and governmental policies that contribute to environmental responsibility. The study critically analyzes the challenges hindering the widespread adoption of sustainable practices and examines innovative solutions and successful case studies. Through a comprehensive review of literature, surveys, interviews, and comparative analyses, this research offers valuable insights into the pivotal components of environmental responsibility. By addressing the ethical, social, and economic dimensions, this study emphasizes the urgent need for collective action to nurture a more sustainable global ecosystem.

Introduction:

Global biodiversity loss rates are rising, carbon emissions are increasing, and social and economic inequality is getting worse. Significant international social organisations like Fridays for Future are calling this scenario an "emergency," describing it as a crime against humanity in which political and corporate leaders are accused of disregarding the condition of present and future vulnerable people. It is now widely acknowledged that environmental disasters and social inequality go hand in hand. Many believe that the window of opportunity for incremental solutions to succeed is closing and that a fundamental, transformative change that combines sustainability and justice is unavoidably required. For how such a transformation can unfold, the COVID­19 pandemic offers a potentially crucial context. Leaders are being urged to revive their economies by the pressing need to repair damaged economies. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for instance, announced the temporary deregulation of enforcement of air pollution standards on March 26, 2020. This move was made to reduce financial costs for businesses, but it came at the cost of raising health risks for vulnerable populations. Contrarily, this period of systemic breakdown offers a chance to rebuild societies in novel ways, mobilising fresh perspectives on vulnerability and resiliency, and investigating how to create and connect the potentially game-changing networks of compassion and resistance that are sprouting up in localities and communities all over the world. We need to make sure that our determined efforts to address social crises like racism are linked to our determination to make headway in resolving environmental challenges. 

The main goal of this discussion is to emphasis how crucial it is to put justice at the centre of revolutionary change. We pursue “just transformations” towards sustainability. This calls for paying extra attention to how those most at risk of being negatively impacted by the effects of the ecological and climate crises as well as those who are at risk of being negatively impacted by the responses to these crises are treated. Inaction on just transformations has increasingly obvious repercussions. There is a moral repercussion since it is wrong to silence marginalised groups’ voices and beliefs or to continue to place unfair burdens on already marginalised groups (in the present or in the future). The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)’s (primary, declared commitment) motto, “leaving no one behind,” upholds this notion. Furthermore, there are useful repercussions. First off, initiatives to promote sustainability will only be successful and will only last as long as people see them to be both just and legitimate. Justice barriers are frequently seen in environmental policy, where perceived unfairness results in insufficient acceptability. Green taxes on fuel, for instance, encountered strong opposition in France, partly due to very specific concerns about fairness relating to the disproportionate costs falling on rural, working-class people, and partly due to larger frustrations with a political system that was perceived to disem-power these groups. 

A shared vision for transformative change must have justice at its core if we have to create a constituency for it. Second, we will be unable to solve the environmental catastrophe if we don't provide justice for oppressed communities. For instance, indigenous peoples play a crucial role in preserving the biodiversity of the planet, but this contribution is jeopardized by the inability to recognize and value their territorial claims. The definition of transformations to sustainability is briefly discussed in the first paragraph. From a justice perspective, we emphasize the difficulty of addressing not only the unfair effects of environmental change but also the underlying power structures that give rise to these unfairness. Hence, we combine transformations with environmental justice. We then review four important insights from environmental justice scholarship to help us better understand how to make progress on just transformations to sustainability.

Why and How Might Transformations Lead to a Sustainable Future?

The conflict between reformist and transformative approaches in contemporary environmentalism is one that has persisted for a while. The reformist strategy seeks to preserve the political and economic structures of societies while modifying them to meet ecological limits. The transformative approach, on the other hand, is based on the need to fundamentally alter social structures, changing human interactions as a necessary prerequisite to the necessary changes in human-nature relationships. According to many political ecologists, global capitalism is the main social structure that needs to be changed because it establishes a relationship between people and nature that is based on constant increases in material consumption and perpetuates unequal wealth accumulation and growing inequalities. To demonstrate this disparity, let’s look at two strategies for addressing concerns about the safety of the global food supply. The fundamental structures underlying the current food system may be found to be acceptable using a reformist approach. This system must be modified to accommodate both the growing demand for food crops and ecological constraints by technological interventions that support sustainable intensification of food production together with reductions in food waste. A transformative plan most likely includes looking at the underlying causes of the problem. The demand for food crops is predicted to double between 2005 and 2050, taking into account the use of bio-fuels. This could be a reference to the current status of the global economy. It can also contend that in order to effectively combat food insecurity, it is equally necessary to address the causes of the 500 million Sub­Saharan Africans who still live in abject poverty. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for transformational change rather than reformist change was becoming more widely acknowledged by international environmental policy organisations like the UN SDGs, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). For instance, the IPBES Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services advocates for transformational change that lowers “total consumption and waste,” that allows for “visions of a good quality of life that do not entail ever-increasing material consumption,” and that addresses “inequalities, especially regarding income and gen­der.” For example, the emergence of wind turbines as a competitive Such changes to the everyday goals of society, to the indicators of societal progress, and to what we all owe to each other, are the kinds of things we consider as transformative changes to society. While agreement is growing that change will need to be transformative, there is less agreement about how this can be directed. Researchers are studying how transformative change has happened historically, in order to find clues about how it can be governed in the future. One important school of thought holds that we should focus our attention on trying to understand the conditions under which small-scale and local inno­vations become the seeds that grow into more profound societal change. This is commonly known as the multilevel per­spective: Local-level innovations such as alternative food networks gain momen­tum to a point where they start to disrupt and transform middle-level sectoral regimes such as the agri business-led food system. At the same time, momentum is facilitated by change to slower-moving societal level (or landscape level) vari­ables including cultural and political values: “In a nutshell, the core logic is that niche innovations build up internal momentum; changes at the landscape level create pressure on the regime; and destabilisation of the regime creates win­dows of opportunity for the diffusion of niche­innovations.” energy technology required nurturing and protection by states, assisted by a political landscape that included growing public demand to act on the climate crisis, even when opposed by the fossil fuel lobby. One of the crucial lessons here is that transformative change requires intervention to weaken the prevailing regime and its powers to resist change. For example, Newell et al. show that attempts to promote climate-smart agriculture as a radical and innovative con­tribution to sustainability have faltered because the prevailing agribusiness regime retained sufficient power to keep it out of the public debate. Large agribusiness players used their domi­nance to weaken the more radical activ­ities of climate-smart agriculture and then incorporate what remained into their regime. This capacity of powerful regimes to resist, weaken, or coopt radical innovation is why Geels portrays the struggle for sustainability as a David and Goliath encounter. Nurturing the little Davids is very much a transfor­mative action, but it won’t produce transformation unless there are parallel efforts to curb Goliath’s power. This multilevel perspective has been developed through studies of transitions in particular sectors (energy, food, mobil­ity, etc.) and is therefore said to have a midscale focus. By contrast, researchers in political ecology and development studies, including work on climate change vulnerability and adaptation, tend to place greater emphasis on society-level change, including redistributing power in favor of currently marginalized social groups. 

It is this insight that trans­formative environmental change needs to be premised on redistribution of power that brings matters of justice clearly into the picture. The elimination of discrimination based on social distinctions like gender and ethnicity, as well as distinctions across geographic space and across generations, is necessary for the redistribution of power. Of course, this is a desirable thing in and of itself. But it also helps with transitions towards sustainability, enabling better judgement, increased legitimacy for environmental policies, and movements with broader support. Promoting status equality between various social groups, for instance, makes room for new perspectives on what it means to be humanly developed or to be in good health. Suppressing radical alternatives to the established system will not end the current environmental problem.

Environmental Responsibility:

Environmental responsibility refers to the ethical obligation of individuals, organizations, and governments to act in ways that protect, preserve, and sustain the natural environment. It involves making decisions and taking actions that minimize negative impacts on the environment, conserve natural resources, and promote ecological balance. Environmental responsibility encompasses a wide range of practices, including reducing pollution, conserving energy and water, minimizing waste, recycling, adopting eco-friendly technologies, and supporting policies and initiatives that promote environmental sustainability.

Individuals can demonstrate environmental responsibility by adopting eco-friendly habits in their daily lives, such as reducing single-use plastic consumption, conserving energy, and participating in community clean-up events. Similarly, businesses and industries can exhibit environmental responsibility by implementing green practices in their operations, investing in renewable energy, and adopting sustainable supply chain management. Governments play a crucial role by enacting and enforcing environmental regulations, promoting environmental education, and supporting research and development of clean technologies. Overall, environmental responsibility is about recognizing the interdependence between human activities and the natural environment and taking proactive measures to ensure the well-being of both present and future generations.

Sustainable Future:

A sustainable future refers to a vision of a world where current generations meet their needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It is a future where economic, social, and environmental systems are in balance, ensuring the well-being of people and the planet over the long term. In a sustainable future:

1. Environmental Conservation: Natural resources are conserved and used efficiently to prevent depletion. Biodiversity is protected, and ecosystems are preserved to maintain ecological balance.
2. Economic Prosperity: Economic activities support a high quality of life for all while minimizing negative impacts on the environment. Sustainable businesses thrive, and economic growth is decoupled from environmental degradation.
3. Social Equity: Social systems are inclusive and fair. Basic needs such as food, water, healthcare, and education are accessible to all. Social justice, gender equality, and human rights are promoted.
4. Climate Stability: Greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to mitigate climate change. Renewable energy sources are predominant, and communities are resilient to climate-related challenges.
5. Technological Innovation: Innovation is directed towards sustainable technologies and practices. Research and development focus on eco-friendly solutions, clean energy, and efficient resource use.
6. Cultural Preservation: Indigenous knowledge and cultural heritage are respected and preserved. Societies celebrate diversity and promote cultural understanding.
7. Education and Awareness: Environmental education is widespread, fostering awareness and understanding of sustainable practices. Informed citizens make eco-conscious choices.
8. Global Cooperation: International collaboration addresses global challenges such as climate change, pollution, and resource depletion. Nations work together to achieve common sustainability goals.

Achieving a sustainable future requires collective efforts from individuals, communities, businesses, and governments. It involves making informed choices in everyday life, supporting policies and initiatives that promote sustainability, and embracing a mindset that values the long-term health of the planet and its inhabitants. Sustainable development is crucial for ensuring a harmonious coexistence between humanity and the natural world, safeguarding the Earth for present and future generations.

Green Practices:

Green practices, also known as environmentally friendly practices or eco-friendly practices refer to actions and activities that have a positive impact on the environment and contribute to sustainability. These practices are designed to reduce harm to the environment, conserve natural resources, and promote ecological balance. Green practices can be implemented by individuals, businesses, and communities and encompass various aspects of daily life and operations. Examples of green practices include:

• Recycling: Sorting and recycling materials like paper, glass, plastic, and metal to reduce the amount of waste going to landfills.
• Energy Conservation: Adopting energy-efficient appliances, using LED lights, and turning off electronic devices when not in use to conserve electricity.
• Water Conservation: Installing water-saving fixtures, fixing leaks, and practicing mind ful water use to conserve water resources.
• Reducing Single-Use Plastics: Minimizing the use of disposable plastic products and opting for reusable and biodegradable alternatives.
• Composting: Recycling organic waste into nutrient-rich compost, reducing the amount of organic waste sent to landfills.
• Sustainable Transportation: Using public transportation, cycling, walking, or driving fuel-efficient or electric vehicles to reduce carbon emissions.
• Conserving Natural Habitats: Protecting and preserving natural habitats and green spaces to support biodiversity and ecosystem health.
• Supporting Local and Sustainable Products: Choosing locally sourced and sustainably produced goods and supporting businesses that prioritize eco-friendly practices.
• Renewable Energy: Investing in or using energy from renewable sources such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric power.
• Waste Reduction: Minimizing waste generation through practices like bulk shopping, repairing items instead of replacing them, and reducing packaging waste.
• Green Building: Constructing or retrofitting buildings with eco-friendly materials, energy-efficient designs, and sustainable features.
• Environmental Education: Promoting awareness and understanding of environmental issues to encourage informed and eco-conscious decision-making.

Implementing green practices contributes to the overall well-being of the planet by conserving resources, reducing pollution, and mitigating the impact of human activities on the environment. Businesses adopting green practices often improve their public image, reduce costs, and comply with environmental regulations, demonstrating a commitment to environmental responsibility.

Eco-friendly Technologies:

Eco-friendly technologies, also known as ‘green technologies or sustainable technologies’ are innovations designed to address environmental challenges and minimize their impact on the planet. These technologies aim to conserve natural resources, reduce pollution, and promote sustainable living. Eco-friendly technologies can be applied across various sectors, including energy, transportation, agriculture, construction, and waste management. Here are some examples of eco-friendly technologies:

1. Renewable Energy Sources: Technologies that harness energy from renewable sources such as solar power, wind energy, hydroelectric power, and geothermal energy. These sources generate electricity without depleting finite resources and with minimal greenhouse gas emissions.
2. Energy Efficient Appliances: Appliances and devices designed to consume less energy, reducing overall electricity usage. This includes energy-efficient LED lighting, smart thermostats, and ENERGY STAR-rated appliances.
3. Green Transportation: Electric vehicles (EVs), hybrid cars, and public transportation systems powered by clean energy sources, reducing dependence on fossil fuels and lowering emissions.
4. Green Building Materials: Sustainable construction materials such as bamboo, reclaimed wood, and recycled metal, which have a lower environmental impact compared to traditional materials. Green buildings also incorporate energy-efficient designs, insulation, and lighting systems.
5. Waste-to-Energy Conversion: Technologies that convert organic waste into energy, such as biogas production from organic waste or waste incineration for electricity generation. These processes reduce landfill waste and utilize organic materials efficiently.
6. Water-Saving Technologies: Water efficient fixtures, rainwater harvesting systems, and wastewater treatment technologies that conserve water resources and reduce water pollution.
7. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): Technologies that capture carbon dioxide emissions from industrial processes or power plants and store them underground to prevent their release into the atmosphere, mitigating climate change.
8. Hybrid and Sustainable Agriculture: Techniques like precision farming, organic farming, and agroforestry that promote sustainable agricultural practices, reduce chemical inputs, and enhance soil health.
9. Green Chemistry: Environmentally friendly chemical processes and materials that minimize the use and generation of hazardous substances, reducing pollution and promoting safer chemical manufacturing.
10. Air and Water Purification Technologies: Advanced filtration systems and purification techniques that remove pollutants and contaminants from air and water sources, improving overall environmental quality.
11. Smart Grids: Intelligent electricity distribution systems that optimize energy usage, reduce wastage, and integrate renewable energy sources efficiently into the grid.
12. Environmental Monitoring Systems: Technologies such as sensors and remote monitoring devices used to collect data on environmental parameters, aiding in informed decision-making for conservation efforts.

Eco-friendly technologies play a crucial role in transitioning to a sustainable future by offering solutions to environmental challenges and supporting a more environmentally conscious society.

Evolution to Sustainability: Why and How?

In order to understand both the immediate and underlying causes of this disparity, environmental justice analysis emphasis the unequal distribution of environmental costs, benefits, and associated well-being outcomes. Why, for instance, are some social groups typically more susceptible to zoonotic coronaviruses like COVID-19 or natural disasters like flooding? The key finding from environmental justice is that distribution disputes and existing social disparities are linked to the patterns of environmental inequality that have been identified. In actuality, the patterns of winners and losers frequently expose hidden forms of prejudice against individuals based on their colour, wealth, gender, and other factors as well as their location in space and time. The idea of justice has often been dissected by environmental justice scholars into many elements of concern. 

The allocation of environmental benefits and costs is known as distributive justice. The decision-making process, specifically who gets to participate, is referred to as procedural justice. Justice as recognition refers to the social standing accorded to identity groups that are characterised by social traits like gender, race, or worldview, colliding with physical and historical circumstances. These issues are frequently related, for instance, when systematic failures of recognition are the core cause of violations of territorial rights of access to and control over natural resources, which are ostensibly distribution and procedure-related issues. Kyle Whyte describes how protestors against the Dakota Access Pipeline often high­lighted injustices arising from the pol­lution risks falling to local people (a distribution concern) and the impossi­bility of participating in consultation processes on equal terms (proce­dural). For the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, however, there is a bigger narrative of 150 years of U.S. settler colonialism that has defined the status of indigenous peoples in a way that explicitly or implicitly justifies the hegemony of their knowledge, culture, and governance systems. This is the basis of the environmental injustice surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline (and many other situations affecting indigenous peoples): a sort of misrecognition with historical origins in racism and colonialism that thwarts efforts to encourage more sustainable relationships with nature. Scholarship on environmental justice examines how winners and losers are distributed, as well as the causes of this distribution. Because it is impossible to presume that interventions meant to bring about revolutionary change would have the same effects on various groups of people, we propose that this kind of study must be at the core of any transformation to sustainability. 

First, the ideals and development goals of various groups and individuals within a society will differ, and as a result, they will experience change in various ways. Second, there is a risk that trade-offs between competing goals will be made that disproportionately affect already vulnerable or marginalized groups in the context of unequal power. This is because efforts to accelerate transformative change will unavoidably involve making trade-offs between competing goals. For instance, there is proof demonstrating that initiatives to conserve in protected areas regularly reproduce and exacerbate the vulnerabilities of the most vulnerable. Many worry that mandated energy transitions will burden the working classes whose jobs are in jeopardy and the rural populations whose land is worry that mandated energy transitions will burden the working classes whose jobs are in jeopardy and the rural populations whose land is being used for bio-energy crops. This may deteriorate local food security and provide more motivation for land grabs. This is not to imply that we wish to put off the energy transition or even that bio-fuels have no place in it. Instead, transformations that do not prioritize justice as a primary goal will not be long-lasting and durable.

We use adaptation to climate change threats as an example to show how a transformative strategy and justice are related. Three different intended outcomes are listed in the literature on climate change by Few et al. Firstly, there are what they refer to as “instrumental” interventions, which focus on using technical means like flood defences to reduce risk broadly. Secondly, there are “progressive” interventions that expressly aim to reduce risks for the most vulnerable individuals by using non-technical measures like ensuring individuals have access to adaptation possibilities. Thirdly, they identify “radical” interventions that aim to alter the underlying social structures and power dynamics that give rise to vulnerability.

Environmental Justice Research Reveals Four Insights:

We must recognize that many actions ostensibly taken in the interest of sustainability are really viewed as unfair in real life. This concern has already been acknowledged in the literature on transformational change, particularly in political ecology and development studies (such as the “safe and just” places), which we address in more detail below: Justness for the Environment on several Fronts:

While references to equality are included in global environmental governance agreements like the 2015 SDGs, they are poorly integrated into objectives and targets, have a restricted focus, and pay little specific regard to justice. We propose that it would be beneficial to include a larger and more explicit understanding of environmental justice that addresses the three separate areas of concern indicated above (distribution, method, and recognition). One such instance involves the REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) mechanism under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This highlights some significant international standards that have been negotiated to combat climate change. Common but Differentiated Responsibilities, or the notion that the biggest polluters bear the biggest duty, is one of these. The other is a set of social safeguards to ensure the full and effective participation of local commu­nities, by means of their free, prior, and informed consent, equitable benefit shar­ing, and respect for customary tenure systems.

Environmental Justice as a Means for settling disputes:

Environmental injustice, conflict, and transformation are all clearly linked in a disturbing way. The Environmental Justice Atlas reports on more than 3000 environmental conflict instances, which are where this is most obviously apparent. These stories offer solid evidence that environmental protection mobilization is typically started by local communities and indigenous peoples and frequently manifests as resistance to resource extraction practices that are viewed as both unfair and unsustainable. A significant component of the environmentalism of the poor is these conflict-based campaigns for environmental justice. In order to better understand the connections between social groups’ increased vulnerability to environmental risks and their increased exposure to them, as well as the role that justice plays in these processes, environmental justice scholars have recently incorporated insights from the field of peace and conflict studies. This study demonstrates how, as part of a transformative process, the pursuit of justice is essential to the quest of peace. 

The fundamental tenet is that conflicts arise out of circumstances that are seen as unfair, and that by exposing these injustices, conflicts serve as catalysts for societal change. In addition to addressing the disputes' underlying causes, conflict transformation works to establish fairness through the righting of wrongs and the development of respectful, just, and cross-cultural partnerships. Conflict transformation researchers view power as both an oppressive (negative) force and an empowering (positive) force that can help local people resolve environmental conflicts and achieve justice. We can better understand why justice is upheld or rejected in particular environmental issues by looking into these two opposing forces of power. The fact that it offers evidence of the kinds of interventions that have been proven effective in numerous fights for just sustainability and that have notably aided in empowerment towards transformative change is most crucial. This is beginning to be accomplished by carefully examining the tactics employed by influential players in environmental conflicts to maintain their position of authority as well as by environmental justice movements to oppose, undermine, or get around such established forces. For instance, there is still much to discover on the types of interventions that are most effective in achieving particular goals and in which situations. 

What we have already learned from the cases in the Environmental Justice Atlas is that communities often seek justice through official complaint channels but complement this with street mobilization, building alliances with nongovernmental organizations or trade unions, media campaigning, and legal advocacy. Furthermore, contesting knowledge is often a central strategy, with efforts to revitalize local culture and knowledge, to produce alter­native knowledge products, to advocate for alternative models of development, and to launch technical challenges against developers’ environ mental impact statements. An increasingly significant tactic for encouraging just transformations is the promotion of “alter­natives” to dominant development paradigms. No Is Not Enough, the title of Naomi Klein’s book, captures this viewpoint by emphasizing the necessity to propose alternative solutions in addition to criticizing the status quo. For instance, the Indian Kondh people’s successful fight to get the Supreme Court’s support to halt bauxite mining in the Niyamgiri hills in Odisha was largely based on the appeal to alternative methods of perceiving and appreciating nature and the statement of its holiness.

An inclusive and reclaimed environmental justice:

The philosophy of environmental justice promotes a pluralist strategy for recognizing various worldviews and defining justice. Its academic traditions previously lacked diversity and drew heavily from Western liberal and critical thought traditions. However, there has been an increase in interest in feminist and postcolonial study. This includes Latin American decolonial theory, which pays particular attention to how colonial dominance’s legacy still influence global development and conservation practices. This pervasive coloniality is still strong in the intellectual sphere. The “pluriverse,” as Kothari et al. called it, continues to be forcibly suppressed and replaced by reductionist and anthropocentric methods of valuing nature. This is because there are several indigenous and local ways of understanding and responding to nature. Even if international organizations like the UNFCCC and the CBD now nominally recognize indigenous and local alternatives to modernist knowledge, in reality these knowledge forms continue to be suppressed. Without assimilating the dominant worldviews, this sort of dominance serves to exclude numerous groups of individuals from participation. This is unquestionably an injustice brought about by a failure to recognize. Because it elevates worldviews that place a high priority on material expansion while destroying the variety of traditional and contemporary wisdom that provides alternatives, it also has detrimental effects on the accessibility of sustainable pathways. These failures to recognize knowledge diversity become institutionalized in education systems, government, and even environ­mental organizations, ignoring deep cul­tural values and constraining policy learning.

Taking a Capabilities-Based holistic approach to Sustainability:

A well-known substitute for conventional, economically oriented measurements of development is the capacities approach to justice. Fundamentally, capacities is a liberal, freedom-focused view of comparative justice that holds that the ability of individuals to live lives they find meaningful is what constitutes justice, not an equality of material commodities. The question of whether humans are capable of achieving specific functionings that they have good cause to value has therefore been in the forefront. A bicycle, for instance, does not by itself deliver mobility or other desired functionings; these require a variety of physical and social capacities, such as gendered norms. In this sense, material items are never ends in and of themselves. This means that, in order to be effective, capabilities-based approaches to environmental justice must engage with well-being considerably more forcefully than has previously been the case in the literature. From the current vantage point, the capabilities approach is significant because it has had a significant impact on how we define wellbeing. This provides a potential entry point for introducing and framing environmental justice in a way that is broad-based and incorporates multiple dimensions such as distribution, procedure, and recognition. Since it was first developed, the capabilities approach has had a significant impact on how global policies are made, influencing numerous World Development Report revisions. It has also been addressed more recently in the Global Sustainable Development Report,which proposes that transformative change to protect the planet will “require expanding human capabilities far beyond the thresholds of extreme poverty so that people are empowered and equipped to bring about change” (p. xxiii) and uses human well-being and capabilities as an entry point for transformation. This is an illustration of how the basic capacities necessary to live a valued life serve as the implicit definition of the thresholds of justice.

Conclusion:

Giorgio Agamben cautions against states using crises and emergencies to justify undemocratically conceived measures in The State of Exception. We are currently dealing with a number of environmental challenges for which delaying action would be gravely unfair to many present-day and future humans as well as non-human life. However, there is also a risk that strong individuals would try to use unusual situations as justification for unfair rules. In this case, we argue that if a transition isn’t just, it isn’t a transformation towards sustainability. What will the reformation of justice look like? It will take a shift of power to address these root issues. This may seem like a distant dream, but there are practical steps that are being taken. For example, alternative (possibly more sustainable) technologies, knowledge, values, and so forth are being protected from opposition from powerful interests. 

Interventions in the legal system and social movements are also being made to give previously marginalized groups the means to fight discrimination and work for justice and sustainability. In order to achieve the SDGs, it is necessary to eliminate discrimination based on “race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, disability, or other status.” A tough goal of just transformation is to reform society as a whole while also taking steps to eliminate the symptoms of inequality (such as unequal risk allocation). Regarding the various moral concerns frequently incorporated into policy and practise, justice must be regarded as multidimensional. This calls for attention to both the justice results, such as unequal risk allocation, and the underlying causes, such as institutionalised systems of discrimination based on recognition failures. More narrowly defined notions of justice, such as the focus on distributive equity that characterises contemporary environmental interventions (payment for ecosystem services programmes, fair trade, compensation programmes, revenue sharing programmes, etc.), will not by themselves guarantee that such transformation is just. How may the transformation towards justice be supported? 

Environmental conflict research shows that measures to lessen repressive forms of authority while fostering community agency are undertaken in order to effect transformative change. Depending on the change aim, a variety of techniques are used to achieve this, including political protest, participation in official governmental processes, and the promotion of local and alternative values and knowledge. We may recognize and support civil society’s pioneering role in setting moral guidelines for just changes as academics and practitioners. This can be achieved by doing study and advocating for environmental protection initiatives that have socially progressive distributional consequences. Additionally, we may achieve this by taking concrete steps to guarantee that a wider range of environmental expertise and worldviews are acknowledged and valued. The position of various worldviews must be rebalanced in order to redistribute power in ways that promote both justice and sustainability. This is increasingly seen as a “decolonizing” agenda, which is essentially revolutionary. One benefit is that a broader conversation about human well-being and the skills deemed essential for a “safe and just” future will be made possible by a greater recognition of varied values.

.    .    .

REFERENCES AND NOTES:

•  J. Patterson, et al., “Exploring the Governance and Politics of Transformations Towards Sustainability,” Environmental Innovations and Societal Transformations24 (2017): 1–16.
•  E. M. Bennett et al., “Bright Spots: Seeds of a Good Anthropocene,” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (2016); 441–448.
•  F. W. Geels, “Regime Resistance Against Low­Carbon Transitions: Introducing Politics and Power Into the Multi­Level Perspective,” Theory, Culture and Society (2014): 21–40.
• P. Newell, O. Taylor, and C. Touni, “Governing Food and Agriculture in a Warming World,” Global Environmental Politics (2018): 53–71.
• UNEP, Emissions Gap Report 2019 (United Nations Environment Programme, 2019).
• S. Díaz et al., Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, https://ipbes.net/global-assessment (2019).
• P. Messerli et al., Global Sustainable Development Report 2019: The Future Is Now Science for Achieving Sustainable Development, https://sdgs.un.org 24576 (2019).
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Announces Enforcement Discretion Policy for COVID­19Pandemic,https://www.epa.gov/enforcement (2020).
• United Nations, Leave No One Behind: Equality and Non-Discrimination at the Heart of Sustainable Development, Report No. 1780449283 (New York, NY: United Nations, 2017).
• W. S. Walker et al., “The role of Forest Conversion, Degradation, and Disturbance in the Carbon Dynamics of Amazon Indigenous Territories and Protected Areas,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (2020): 3015–3025.
• A. Gorz, Ecology as Politics (Portland, OR: Black Rose Books Ltd., 1980).
• J. Hickel and G. Kallis, “Is Green Growth Possible?,” New Political Economy (2020): 469–486.
• D. Harvey, The Enigma of Capital and the crises of capitalism (London, UK: Profile Books, 2010).
• K. Whyte, “The Dakota Access Pipeline, Environmental Injustice, and US Colonialism,” Red Ink: An International Journal of Indigenous Literature, Arts, & Humanities 19 (2017) 1.
• M. Tebboth, R. Few, M. Assen, and M. Degefu, “Valuing Local Perspectives on Invasive Species Management: Moving Beyond the Ecosystem Service–Disservice Dichotomy,” Ecosystem Services 42 (2020): 101068.
• T. M. Daw et al., “Elasticity in Ecosystem Services: Exploring the Variable Relationship Between Ecosystems and Human Well­Being,” Ecology and Society 21 (2016), doi:10.5751/ES­08173­210211.
• A. Martin, Just Conservation: Biodiversity, Wellbeing and Sustainability (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2017).
• D. Tilman, C. Balzer, J. Hill, and B. L. Befort, “Global Food Demand and the Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(2011): 20260–20264.
• W. Bank, Poverty and Shared Prosperity 2018: Piecing Together the Poverty Puzzle, Report no. 1464809585 (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2018).
• K. Hölscher, J. M. Wittmayer, and D. Loorbach, “Transition Versus Transformation: What’s the Difference?,” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions (2018): 1–3.
• I. Scoones, M. Leach, and P. Newell, The Politics of Green Transformations (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2015).
• I. Scoones et al., Transformations to Sustainability (Sussex, UK: STEPS Working Paper 104, 2018).
• M. Pelling, K. O’Brien, and D. J. C. C. Matyas, “Adaptation and Transformation,” Climatic Change 133 (2015): 113–127.30
• U. Brand, ‘Transformation’ as a New Critical Orthodoxy: The Strategic Use of the Term “Transformation” Does Not Prevent Multiple Crises,” GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 25 (2016): 23–27.
• L. Temper, M. Walter, I. Rodriguez, A. Kothari, and E. A. Turhan, “A Perspective on Radical Transformations to Sustainability: Resistances, Movements and Alternatives,” Sustainability Science 13 (2018): 747–764.
• G. Feola, “Capitalism in Sustainability Transitions Research: Time for a Critical Turn?,” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 35 (2020): 241–250.
• D. Schlosberg, “Reconceiving Environmental Justice: Global Movements and Political Theories,” Environmental Politics 13 (2004):517–540, doi:10.1080 /0964401042000229025.
• K. Whyte, “The Dakota Access Pipeline, Environmental Injustice, and US Colonialism,” Red Ink: An International Journal of Indigenous Literature, Arts, & Humanities 19 (2017) 1.
• M. Tebboth, R. Few, M. Assen, and M. Degefu, “Valuing Local Perspectives on Invasive Species Management: Moving Beyond the Ecosystem Service–Disservice Dichotomy,” Ecosystem Services 42 (2020): 101068.
• T. M. Daw et al., “Elasticity in Ecosystem Services: Exploring the Variable Relationship Between Ecosystems and Human Well­Being,” Ecology and Society 21 (2016), doi:10.5751/ES­08173­210211.
• A. Martin, Just Conservation: Biodiversity, Wellbeing and Sustainability (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2017).
• E. Woodhouse and J. T. McCabe, “Well­Being and Conservation: Diversity and Change in Visions of a Good Life Among the Maasai of Northern Tanzania,” Ecology and Society 23 (2018).
• D. M. Tumusiime and P. Vedeld, “False Promise or False Premise? Using Tourism Revenue Sharing to Promote Conservation and Poverty Reduction in Uganda,” Conservation and Society 10 (2012): 15–28.
• J. Schleicher, C. A. Peres, T. Amano, W. Llactayo, and N. J. Leader­Williams, “Conservation Performance of Different Conservation Governance Regimes in the Peruvian Amazon,” Scientific Reports 7 (2017): 11318.
• V. Reyes­García et al., “The Contributions of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities to ecological Restoration,” Restoration Ecology 27 (2019): 3–8
• D. Stevis and R. Felli, “Law & Economics. Global Labour Unions and Just Transition to a Green Economy,” International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 15 (2015): 29–43.
• P. Tschakert and A. L. S. Clair, “Conditions for transformative change: The role of responsibility, solidar­ity, and care in climate change research,” in Transformations in a Changing Climate (Oslo, Norway: University of Oslo, 2013), 267–275.
• S. Eriksen, T. H. Inderberg, K. O’Brien, and L. Sygna, “Introduction: development as usual is not enough,” in Climate Change Adaptation and Development(Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2014), 17–34.
• R. Gillard, A. Gouldson, J. Paavola, and J. Van Alstine, “Transformational Responses to Climate Change: Beyond a Systems Perspective of Social Change in Mitigation and Adaptation,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 7 (2016): 251–265.
• N. J. Bennett, J. Blythe, A, M. Cisneros­Montemayor, G. G. Singh, and U. R. Sumaila, “Just Transformations to Sustainability,” Sustainability 11 (2019): 3881.
• J. J. Patterson et al., “Political Feasibility of 1.5° C Societal Transformations: The Role of Social Justice,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 31 (2018): 1–9.
• M. Menton et al., “Environmental Justice and the SDGs: From Synergies to Gaps and Contradictions,” Sustainability Science (2020): 1–16.
• E. Turnhout et al., “Envisioning REDD + in a Post­Paris Era: Between Evolving Expectations and Current Practice,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change8 (2017): e425.
• R. Myers et al., “Messiness of Forest Governance: How Technical Approaches Suppress Politics in REDD + and Conservation Projects,” Global Environmental Change 50 (2018): 314–324.
• N. M. Dawson et al., “Barriers to Equity in REDD+: Deficiencies in national Interpretation Processes Constrain Adaptation to Context,” Environmental Science & Policy 88 (2018): 1–9.
• M. M. Bayrak and L. M. Marafa, “Ten Years of REDD+: A Critical Review of the Impact of REDD + on Forest­Dependent Communities,” Sustainability 8 (2016): 620.
• T. Sikor and H. Cầm, “REDD + on the Rocks? Conflict Over Forest and Politics of Justice in Vietnam,” Human Ecology 44 (2016): 217–227.
• K. Schreckenberg, P. Franks, A. Martin, and B. Lang, “Unpacking Equity for Protected Area Conservation,” Parks 22 (2016): 11–26.
• D. Roe, “The Origins and Evolution of the Conservation­Poverty Debate: A Review of Key Literature, Events and Policy Processes,” Oryx 42 (2008): 491–503.
• N. Zafra­Calvo et al., “Progress Toward Equitably Managed Protected Areas in Aichi Target 11: A Global Survey,” Bio Science 69 (2019): 191–197.
• D. Brockington and D. Wilkie, “Protected Areas and Poverty,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 370 (2015): p20140271.
• J. Fairhead, M. Leach, and I. Scoones, “Green Grabbing: A New Appropriation of Nature?,” Journal of Peasant Studies 39 (2012): 237–261, doi:10.1080/03066150.2012.671770.
• R. Few, D. Morchain, D. Spear, A. Mensah, and R. Bendapudi, “Transformation, Adaptation and Development: Relating Concepts to Practice,” Palgrave Communications 3 (2017): 1–9.
• K. O’Brien, “Global Environmental Change II: From Adaptation to Deliberate Transformation,” Progress in Human Geography 36 (2012): 667–676 (2012).