2. Actuación administrativa y procedimiento necesario para la aplicación de las cláusulas
2.3. Control jurisdiccional, medios de control y aspectos procesales
As discussed in Chapter 3, the ideological perspective that informs one’s
understanding of the world has a profound influence on the identifications of the causes of, and potential solutions to, complex challenges such as global warming and the resulting climate change. Climate change is a particularly politicised issue, as Bedall and Görg (2014), among others (for example, Steger, Goodman & Wilson 2013), point out, because:
Climate change is embedded in complex societal conflicts… [which] are rooted in divergent interests in society. They have to do, for example, with the dependence of certain industrial sectors on the use of fossil fuels and with the greenhouse gas emissions associated with that use. They also have to do with the situation of social groups who are particularly hard hit by the impacts of climate change. Yet neither of these facets – more narrowly defined economic interests on the one hand and social vulnerabilities on the other – exists independently of its interpretation and construction through language. They have to be created discursively and become established and accepted as more or less dominant interpretations.
(Bedall & Görg 2014, p. 44; emphasis in original)
The war of position between reformist and critical positions is thus largely fought through the discursive debates vis-‐à-‐vis the causes of (and hence possible solutions to) climate change between different actors within the broad climate movement (de Lucia 2014). One way of understanding this ideological difference between the moderate and radical wings of the climate movement is to refer to neo-‐Gramscian concepts that distinguish between problem solving and critical approaches (as discussed in Chapter 3).
critical approaches as well as to the Gramscian notion of hegemony (for example, refer to Elliott 2004, pp. 224 – 226 and de Lucia 2009, 2014).
183 This ideological division is also evident in tactics and actions; for example, on the day
after the 2014 People’s Climate March, the radical wing of the climate justice movement organised and participated in a much smaller but more militant ‘breakaway Flood Wall Street action,’ with the aim of drawing attention to the links between ‘Wall Street’ (representing capitalism) and the climate crisis (Giacomini & Turner 2015).
The moderate climate action movement identifies the cause of climate change in largely scientific and politically ‘sanitised’ technical terms; for example, they focus almost exclusively on how increases in GHG emissions in the atmosphere are changing the Earth’s energy balance (Bedell & Görg 2014; de Lucia 2014; Tokar 2014). This approach treats climate change as a specific, discrete, and often
technical ‘silo issue’ and leads to the conclusion that it can be addressed in isolation by ‘problem solving’ and tweaking global capitalism so that it is no longer powered by fossil fuels. This leads climate action movement supporters to try to solve the problem of climate change by lobbying governments and policymakers to implement reforms to the current system. The solutions they propose include the adoption of renewable technologies for energy production and the development and
implementation of a mix of regulatory policies closely aligned with ‘market
instruments’ to achieve a transition from a global capitalist economy based on the use of fossil fuels to a ‘green’ global capitalist economy based on renewable energy. Many supporters of climate action are therefore generally committed “to a paradigm of ecological modernization according to which environmental problems can be resolved politically, economically, and technologically within the context of real existing institutions and power structures. Importantly, adherents of the
modernization camp also believe that their aims are compatible with continuing economic growth” (Garrelts and Dietz 2014, p. 2).
While agreeing with the moderate climate action movement’s identification of the physical mechanisms and material manifestations of anthropogenic global warming, the radical climate justice movement goes much further in its analyses of both the nature of the problem and its causes and consequences, pointing to relations of domination in all their forms (along the lines of class, sex, race, and human attempts to dominate nature) as the primary causes of a variety of interconnected
environmental, economic, and socio-‐political problems (Bedell & Görg 2014; Giacomini & Turner 2015).184 Actors within the radical climate justice movement
184 De Lucia (2014) raises the crucial point that even radical climate justice actors find it
difficult to avoid being drawn into hegemonic discourses of ‘parts per million’ and technological solutions, thus diverting their attention and presenting dangers of trasformismo (as discussed in Chapter 3). He also draws attention to the way in which
thus use a critical perspective that leads to a very complex understanding of climate change as only one challenge to humanity that is evolving within the context of an ever-‐expanding global capitalist system in which a small global elite exploits both nature and people in order to increase its economic wealth and political power (Burgmann & Baer 2012; Tanuro 2013). From the perspective of radical climate justice movement actors, climate change is thus only one symptom (albeit an extremely important and pressing symptom) of the widespread ecological
destruction and social harms that results from the pervasive relations of domination that characterise global capitalism (Bedall & Görg 2014; Steger, Goodman & Wilson 2013).185 Given their analyses of the nature and causes of the multiple crises
humanity currently faces, radical climate justice movement actors argue that the solution to these interconnected problems requires fundamental ‘system change’.186
the concept ‘climate justice’ is interpreted differently by actors within the climate movement; having always had a moderate, institutional meaning as enshrined in Article 3 of the UNFCCC, it was more extensively ‘mainstreamed’ at COP-‐15 so that it now risks being an ‘empty signifier.’ As such, ‘climate justice’ is “a contested and ambiguously under-‐determined concept, … open to hegemonic appropriation and vulnerable to the mechanics of trasformismo” (de Lucia 2014, p. 67). As Smith, Plummer & Hughes (2017, p. 5) point out, the mechanics of trasformismo involve not only the assimilation and co-‐ optation of movement organisations themselves, but also their ‘discourses and agendas,’ thereby “obscuring the boundaries between social movements and actors that
perpetuate the status quo.” To avoid confusion, I have decided to resort to the clumsy (but hopefully more accurate) label ‘radical climate justice’ wing in this thesis.
185 Collins (2015) identifies a different kind of radicalism in those groups within the
climate movement who support ‘deep ecology’ positions and who argue that “the survival of the planet trumps all other concerns.” The deep ecology position is not discussed in any detail in this dissertation because it is not a widely-‐held view within either of the major wings of the climate movement and is also antithetical to ecosocialist thinking, which aims to re-‐establish ecological balance in the Earth System so that humanity can thrive, along with other animals and life forms, by drawing sustainably on the sources of all wealth (unalienated labour and nature, as discussed in Chapter 7).
186 Some climate activists are much more forthcoming than others about what sort of
post-‐capitalist future they envisage as possible or desirable, which is another instance of the ‘messiness’ of real life that defies containing either ideas or people into the
convenient, neat categories that would expedite analysis; for example, widely-‐respected climate activist Naomi Klein has been critiqued on this issue by some climate justice movement actors but others, with a more nuanced understanding of strategy and tactics, defend her against these critiques (for example, refer to Smith & Foster 2017). This debate performs a vital function (as do all such debates within the climate
movement, as long as they are conducted in ways that are respectful) by contributing to a deeper understanding of the issues by all parties concerned and by others following it and thinking about the issues raised, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 8.
A comparison of how climate action supporters and how radical climate justice activists interpret phrases such as ‘connecting the dots’ demonstrates the different positions adopted by the two wings of the climate movement. The 2012 climate action movement’s 350.org-‐initiated campaign aimed to ‘connect the dots’ between climate change and the increasing number of ‘extreme’ weather events around the world (McKibben 2012a), thereby narrowly focusing on the physical and technical aspects of anthropogenic GHG emissions and the scientific and technical aspects of their physical effects. Climate justice activists argue that a genuine understanding of the global warming crisis entails ‘connecting the dots’ between: the scientific
evidence of anthropogenic climate change and other anthropogenic threats to the Earth’s biosphere; the social, economic and political systems created by humans (and therefore subject to being changed by humans) causing the current crises; and the ethical implications of different courses of action. As discussed in more detail in Chapters 7 and 8, ecosocialist analyses and arguments are well equipped to make strong contributions to joining the ‘dots’ in this war of position, thereby building on prevailing ‘common sense’ understandings (which can be partial, incomplete, or somewhat incoherent) of the causes and dangers of anthropogenic global warming in order to promote what Gramsci refers to as a more coherent and developed ‘good sense’ of these causes and, very importantly, of the implications of different
proposed solutions for different groups of people. In contrast to moderate climate action movement concerns about the physical and technical aspects of climate change, ecosocialist analyses draw attention to the ethical dimensions of the issue. By consistently linking climate change and social justice issues, ecosocialist analyses emphasise that there is much at stake in who succeeds in winning this ideological debate: it is not overstating the case that the lives of many people depend on the outcome of this war of position and its success in building a powerful counter-‐ hegemonic bloc to shift the debate within the climate movement from what radical climate justice activists see as dangerous, narrow problem-‐solving ‘false solutions’ and instead turn its energies towards working on ‘system change’: creating a more
truly sustainable society with different values.187 The division between problem-‐ solving and critical approaches within the larger climate movement is exemplified by its two largest umbrella organisations, Climate Action Network International (CAN-‐I) and CJN!, which are networks of a variety of NGOs, CSOs and social movements. Ecosocialists align themselves with CJN!, and were involved in forming the new coalition when it became clear that CAN-‐I had started supporting what radical climate justice advocates saw as ‘false solutions’. The events leading to the formation of CJN! are discussed after a brief overview of CAN-‐I.