Alice Yamabe  00:13

Hello and welcome to “About Sustainability”, a podcast brought to you by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, or IGES for short, I'm Alice your host for this episode, and today, we'll talk about the just transition with two researchers from IGES: So-Young Lee from the integrated Sustainability Center, and Dwayne Appleby from the sustainable consumption and production team. We'll explore what the just transition means, tracing its roots back to labour movements of the 1970s and its evolution into international debates and sustainable frameworks. Our guests will share innovative case studies that showcase how just transition principles are being implemented locally across the world, with a special focus on Asia, and discuss ongoing challenges and successes. So let's dive into today's discussion where I first asked what exactly we mean by a Just Transition.

I feel like this has been a topic that I've been hearing a lot in climate environmental discussions. I keep hearing about it, and it kind of makes sense. It is something that I feel is probably morally right, but then I find it hard to really understand what it means practically, in terms of both what's on the ground, but also how it is translated into policies. So if you could just enlighten me about what this term means and where it comes from.

Dwayne Appleby  01:39

I think this is a tricky question. And they think that this is, for my view, where the global discussion right now is stuck, because we all know that, you know, we need to think about a just transition. It sounds great, of course. We want the transition to net zero or climate, whatever we call it, to be just we want it to be inclusive and all of these things. But you know, what does that mean to different people from different countries, from different economic classes, different backgrounds, and so, yeah, it's a it's a difficult question. The thing that it's kind of agreed upon is that just transition as a concept started maybe in the 1970s 1980s in the United States, as this kind of labour movement, from trade unions that were facing kind of transitions within their industries, from disruption, from information, communication, technology, digitisation, the early.com period, but also globalization and so jobs were disappearing and moving and trade unions were rightly so advocating for their workers to be taken care of during that transition. So thinking about everything from retraining, pensions, loss of social status, thinking about retirements, ongoing livelihoods, all of these things needed to be considered. And so the roots of just transition as a topic are very much in the labour movement. And I think today we still see that it is largely rooted in discussions of the workplace and livelihoods and and jobs, but we're seeing it spread into the larger context. And so there's kind of two parallel discussions happening at the same time, whether or not we're strictly focusing on economic transition, say, you know, transitioning the really high carbon industries, the energy sector, or if we're also saying, no, no, let's look and make the transition, the social transition, the economy wide transition, just, yeah, there's these, these multiple tensions that are happening.

So-Young Lee  03:48

The only thing I want to cover is that, I mean, it has to be emphasized a lot on job creation. You know, decent job and green, decent quality jobs for those who might, you know, lose their workplaces, especially those in first of all, related sectors. So that's the I mean, the main has been main kind of, you know, focus, but from last year, bigger perspective. I mean, the concept of this just transition must extend it, you know, beyond securing those decent jobs. I mean, that's, I think, what we need to understand much further. It's because, as I'm the environmental sociologist, you know, when there was the those construction of development in power plants in very first place, the local fisheries or small farmers, for instance, they've lost many of their livelihood, and they didn't realize what's the potential side effects, you know, in. Very first place and and also they had no, no strong connection at all to access any political channels, right to present their voices like a labour union. labour Union actually has quite a strong voice now. So I mean, the the issue, I think we have is that how we should and can expand the concept of just transition, which has been highlighted recently. 

Alice Yamabe  05:25

So you mean, we should expand it to beyond just talking about workers rights, right? So what exactly should that include?

So-Young Lee  05:33

I mean, I'm happy to see nowadays, you know, the latest analysis on just transition, I think Dwayne would agree that it allows more open space for developing much easy to say, the interdisciplinary approach to generate justice oriented formation that often take the frameworks of environmental injustice narratives, which I'm most familiar with, like, you know, distributive justice and procedural justice, you know, and so on. And then, to me, the recognition justice has to be highlight the most, because, you know, the negative impacts of this climate change experienced very differently, right across place, time, and also the socio economic status. So it's easy to the government make decisive policy to provide jobs to their workers, but if you know they have to expand all these you know different types of climate change impacts, it would be difficult. So I can understand why it has been focused in certain sector for the net zero development but you know, it shouldn't be limited only in that sector and only in certain group of people. That's my point.

Dwayne Appleby  07:04

I'm so happy that you brought up, you know, kind of these different types of justice, you know, different approaches to the way that we think about it. Because I think, and you're, you're exactly right that, you know, you know, we need to focus governments, large governments, state level, governments can focus on, you know, job creation, these large policies, but when it comes down to the local level, we need to start thinking more about participatory justice, representative, you know, all of these different things that allow for multiple pathways to achieving just transition. And I wonder maybe we will talk about this a bit later. That it makes me think that you know some of the global level policy discussions, as much as I feel that you know maybe with the term just transition, we're in the same position that maybe the term environment was at in you know, 1990 or something, where you look at a textbook and, you know, you have a list of things to consider, you know, politics, economics, etc, etc. And then it's always at the end, and environment. And now today, it seems, you know, you know, Net Zero, circular, you know, all of these things. And just transition, and it's kind of tacked on to the end, but you know, you know, we have it in Paris, the Paris Agreement, you know, in COP decisions or discussions. And I think that this, you know, we run the risk of having these large policies that are that don't allow for enough space for creative input and participatory input at the local level that actually will, I think, allow just transition to really manifest. I think that there's too much. Maybe it's too negative for me to say, but it feels like, you know, there's politics gets in the way of it. You know, kind of global power politics. You know the histories of, you know, imperialism, colonialism, etc. You know who's responsible for what you know. I think that all of that can get us bogged down at the at the higher level, whereas at the local level, I think people can very easily see, you know, what they need and what types of, what types of actions they would like to see. And yeah, so as long as the kind of the theory of or the practice of creating a just transition is participatory, I think maybe some of that can be mitigated.  

Alice Yamabe  09:42

Yeah, I think you just mentioned the Paris Agreement, the cops that have been starting to include this language in most of their texts. And it's, I think it's a recent move, right? So I'm just kind of wondering, why hasn't this always been the case?

Dwayne Appleby  09:59

Well. When we look at justice, I think there is an aspect of whether or not we're coming at this from this utilitarian perspective or libertarian perspective, if I can kind of do a bipolar mapping of it at the global level, this is, this is essentially what's determining you know what is possible and why we haven't been working on it in the past, because there are many countries who are more libertarian that would say, well, the proper role of government, you know, is to just provide open space for people to be as free as possible. And so that affects taxation, which affects the resources that governments can put towards certain things. It also affects whether or not citizens think that it is the role of government to step in and say, these are bad. You know, there are some countries. European Union is very happy to take a more collectivist, utilitarian perspective and say, Sure, let's tax. Let's work together. Let's do all these things some other countries, you know, my country, included Canada, you know, more libertarian, less likely to want to, you know, prescribe what people can do. And so I think there's these clashing views. And more so now with the, you know, the emerging large economies, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, etc. Indonesia, they also have different perspectives and different pathways into this. So it's a, you know, it's literally and figuratively. We're speaking different languages and coming at it from, from different perspectives. They think that that has led to some of this gridlock, in this hesitation to actually take action on it.

So-Young Lee  11:43

I think it's really, really important question, Alice, you've raised that. Why now? Right? Why not just transition? I mean, that was exactly the same question I've raised myself that you know, why? Why now? Because it's been for long that the social sociologists tend to put environment at the end. Always, you know, when we are talking about justice issues, equity issues. But to me as the environmental sociologist, environment came always the first because, you know, like intra generational environmental injustice, you know, dimension, when we talk about that. It's very basic concept that you know that covers the fair distribution of natural resources between, you know, different socioeconomic status and they will get, they should have fair distribution of environmental impacts, right? So between class, race, gender, and so on, within the specific country and society, but, but, well, when we I say that that's environmental injustice, that form of social justice is there is no big difference. You know, that refers the distribution of natural resources, and also, you know, externalities among the groups of people within certain country, within certain society. That's exactly the same as what's happening with social injustice issues. So it's same. It's there is not that much of difference. But, you know, I think Dwayne also addressed this part is that there has been historical imbalance in resource distribution, not only within country, within a certain society, but between nations and regions. So there is the global north and south. And you know the we say environmental colonialism, and that's the fact. And if we can expand further, I mean, beyond this current generation, I mean even we can talk about the those population might affect would be the worst is we save future generations, right? So in this case, the climate crisis, they might get affected much worse than the current generation. This is for sure, as long as we believe climate crisis is really affecting and they have least able to influence any policy processes at all, or they have no chance to influence any policy processes. So we can say this is intergenerational injustice between the current and next generation. So you know, if we can expand further and further this environmental injustice, we can extend even, you know, to the ecological injustice issues. So I mean justice between species, right? So. What I want to say is that we really need to recognize the intrinsic value of all other species. Then it goes further and further. But if we need to limit within our I mean justice within this current human society, the justice issues if we have to limit but, I mean, my concern is that the just transition, the current concept, still need to expand much further. I mean, even it, it doesn't go to North and South and or any kind of discussion between the current and next or between the spaces it has to consider those pre existing inequalities, because that has been recurring. I mean, that's never solved, and that's actually recurring under this net zero development model. I think that's very, I mean, serious issue, because it's almost the same narratives, since we focus on technological transition development only, I mean focused on and only receives the most attention. And I mean, if we keep the almost same way of path, then how can we really consider this is just and fair transition, many things remain same.

Alice Yamabe  16:29

Yeah, this seems really, really complex, and it makes it harder for me to understand exactly who is most vulnerable to this transition, who are the losers and who are the people who need to compensate the others, because they might be the winners of this transition, because you also mentioned that it was affected by past inequalities. And how do we understand that this transition is an added stressor to these inequalities? How do you differentiate that? And how can we have a system that fairly compensates the losers? And how do we make sure that the winners recognize that they're benefiting from this transition and make sure that everyone is a similar standpoint, and that no one is left behind?

So-Young Lee  17:18

I can say that many those technological solutions somewhat produced unsustainable, environmental, social, ethical risks. I mean, that's what I can point out. So if you want to identify them as the losers, it's up to you, but I can say that, for instance, there is a trade offs that associated with this deployment of renewables. I mean, massive renewables. I'm emphasizing massive renewables here for the rapid decarbonization that have been replicated pre existing injustice. I mean, as I mentioned before, you know, it's land grabbing, is there, and all those locals rights, I mean, the lose of their livelihood and so on because of this massive commercial solar complex. I mean, I don't know who could be the winner and lose. I can clearly see who is the loser, but who can be the winner. I mean, my question I can raise myself, is that. Why I'm we? Do we consuming this much energy and resources keep I mean, encouraging this globalization, urbanization, misconception. Why do we push us ourselves? I mean to ever greater energy resource use, even we see all these mean inequalities are there?

Dwayne Appleby  18:51

Some of, some of the challenge of, you know, deciding who's winning and losing, as So-Young pointed out, is really dependent on how we frame this. What, what do we consider to be winning? Is winning just having more money. We know like we're we exist in a capitalist system. And so that's how we determine success, wealth, generation, accumulation. And so we could have, you know, transitions that you know, Alice, you and I have, you know, worked on some frameworks of, you know, one planet living right, that in those framings, you know, we it requires a radical rethink of things like sufficiency, you know, so getting at what So Young was saying. Why do we need to keep pushing for more and more and more, more consumption, more globalization, more energy production, the economy has, you know, seems to have a momentum of its own, and you know, in some ways, you know, it drags the rest of us along with it. But just transitions provides, perhaps an opportunity for us to rethink that. But we're dealing with people, and we all have different motivations. We all. Have different aspirations for the future. Again, coming back to this discussion about historical inequalities, historical injustices that have set up these, you know, systems where we have expectations, we have these entrenched relationships. And you know that really it's creating the boundaries past which we seem to not be able to see, you know, like, or at least policymakers, I shouldn't say we, you know, many researchers, practitioners, on the ground, you know, some policymakers can see beyond and to start to, you know, imagine something different. But I think for many policymakers, the you know, they exist within the system as it is, and so it's difficult for them to see outside of it. They do see winners and losers, maybe as people who come out economically ahead. You know, do you have more employment? Do you have greater GDP? Do you have, you know, these types of things that tells them, you know, we're winners. You know, when you look back at when globalization was happening and you have jobs moving overseas, and, you know, for example, you know, North America stopped, you know, manufacturing things, and sent manufacturing overseas. And that was initially seen as, you know, well, it's, it's, we're losing jobs, but then people made a lot more money. Well, I people, I shouldn't say individuals, but overall, GDP went up. And so people said, Oh, it's a great success. And maybe that, I mean, on paper, that's true. But if you go to certain, certain communities that used to exist, and they're gone now, they had been there for 300 years or something, and now they're gone. And that strikes us in that sense of fairness. You know, as we look at at the just transition, we need to think about fairness as well, because we're dealing with people, of course, now I'm going to contradict myself and say that there are people who would say, Well, who cares what people think the planet has hard limits, and it doesn't matter, you know, like, all we're doing is managing the transition as well as we can. But you know, the limits are the limits, and you know, the planet will force us into alignment. But I think, yeah, I don't know, it's a really difficult challenge. And you know, how do we, how do we determine winners and losers? It's anyone's guess.

So-Young Lee  22:26

The process nowadays, I see, is that there have been political process that seems to incorporate the voices of disadvantaged populations, like, you know, the indigenous peoples nowadays, it seems like so there has been the recent discussion on this inclusion. I remember that the UNEP, indigenous peoples, major group has been acknowledged by the UNEP and and they put the Indigenous People's vital role in the decision making process. So it seems like, you know, there is a procedural justice has been recognized, it seems like. And the 22 values assessment from it pass, and I saw that COVID The indigenous people's diverse values. I mean the values with nature and their historical connections to the resources, and I think that's a good I mean that they somewhat started to include, I don't want to say losers, but I mean the marginalized voices. But sorry, I'm so shouldn't be this much cynical, but I'm not that much fully convinced, because, I mean, those Indigenous Knowledges picked up might be, I mean, to me, it's collected for those, not the winners, but those current. I mean dominant groups rather than I mean that is really well represent of the indigenous peoples true values. So I'm just worried.

Dwayne Appleby  24:20

Where I grew up, in British Columbia, in Canada, we we have, you know, many indigenous groups. Canada has a, you know, a really horrific history of the way we treated the indigenous people. And so I'll, you know, preface it by saying that, but I will also say so young that I don't think you're being too cynical, based on my own experience of watching what has happened in Canada, that, yeah, there is, you know, a lot of movement to kind of include indigenous voices, or to bring in, what is it called, like tech, you know, tradition. Environmental knowledge or some but it does tend to, what's the word it? It tends to be a fetishization of indigenous peoples and their lifestyles and what, what colonizers view we have this idealized, you know, vision that goes back to this, you know, very western view of the maybe very British view of the noble savage, you know, that's, it's, it's deeply insulting, you know. But it's, you know, now this new one is kind of, you know, it's, it looks a little nicer, but it seems to me to be a lot of lip service. It's not a lot there's not a lot of substance there. It's performative. And so I think, yeah, on the one hand, you know, it is encouraging to see at least more people being brought to the table. But, and, you know, and that is definitely a prerequisite for for any type of just transition. But at the same time, yeah, I'm also highly cynical.

Alice Yamabe  26:08

Yeah. So it's it shouldn't only be about people being included at the table, and it should also be about them actually having an agency, actually having control over how they want to decide their future, and yeah, having the capacity to do that. How are we making sure that people have that sort of agency? Are there policies or actions that we can look towards that can be potentially modeled after? I know that most of the time we have to do this case by case, and we have to tailor this to every community's needs, every country's different interests. But at the same time, I'm wondering, is there a success story that we can be inspired by.

So-Young Lee  26:56

I mean, I feel like maybe so young tell me if I'm wrong, but I feel that this is a kind of another example where my my response is kind of like, not really, we're not really seeing it. You know, it's, yeah, I feel like people are except at the local level. I will say this local level is something a little bit different. I think we could talk about some examples here in Japan that are good examples, like in kamikatsu, maybe in shukoku, the 00, waste community, like these, these types of things that are really participatory, deeply rooted in place, responding to local needs, empowering people, the elders, young, all of this, you know, it's really great. But I think, yeah, at these kind of larger levels, I don't see us, yeah, really, really supporting actual concrete policies or activities. Yet, I think it's still a lot of discussion. And a lot of that discussion, unfortunately, I feel, is people talking past each other because we don't have a shared idea of what a just transition is. Is it just economy? Is it social? Is it intergenerational? As So Young was saying, this is so important to be thinking of this intergenerational aspect, and it seems like it's not. We're not quite there yet in terms of concrete discussions on the part of at least elected officials,

Alice Yamabe  28:31

I think we know what not to do, but it's hard to know what exactly should be, the exact the roadmap to have a properly just transition. I think a very famous example of what not to do is the gilejo, the yellow vests in France, where the governments wanted to implement a carbon tax, and then they realized that that was affecting much more the sectors that were dependent on the transportation system that was not public, like their individual transportation system, and that meant that it was going to be a huge burden on those households and those individuals. And then it led to a lot of protests. But then one good thing that came out of it, I think, is understanding that everyone understands that we have to do this transition, that we all have to pay for it, but you have to know what you're paying for. You have to know what direction you're going towards. And then at the time, it was just okay, let's adopt this transition towards a decarbonized society. So some people have to pay for this carbon but then you're not really quite sure what you're going to invest this into. So that meant that a lot of people were just seeing the price that they were paying without really seeing the benefits that they would get out of it in the future. So it should probably also be about having a common understanding of the future you want a society or as a community.

Dwayne Appleby  30:04

I think you've you touched on something I think really important there as well, like as as we have discussions, and continue to have more discussions about just transitions, a really important part is when we're when I say we, I mean policymakers, but also researchers. When we talk to the public about just transition, we need to be really clear about what to expect. I think a lot of that I've read, you know, maybe from like UNDP, UNEP, etc. They, they talk about the the opportunity, right? They talk about the opportunity of the green transformation, you know, new clean jobs, you know. You know better, this, better, that all of these things. But they don't mention that, you know, with this new creation will come destruction. You know, it does need to happen. It's very Schumpeterian kind of this creative destruction model of innovation and economic development and social change, which means, yes, there will be losers, you know, there will be people who lose their job in the short term, or industries that disappear, ways of life that disappear as well. And so, you know, we need to be very clear in discussing that, because I think we see increasingly, certainly across the West, that, you know, citizenries are increasingly distrustful of their governments. They don't believe what they hear, because they, you know, maybe feel that they're only getting one side of a story, or not even one side, you know, half of a side, they're just getting a very narrow slice that they're being told what someone thinks they want to hear. Therefore, they're not empowered to really understand what's going on and and take action based on that, to actually truly participate in it. They're, you know, current. You know, political and economic models encourage people to disconnect from that, and, you know, it then leaves us with a situation, perhaps, you know, do we? Do we try and find a way to get to a just transition that relies on market mechanisms? I mean, that sounds crazy, you know, like you can't buy your way into a just transition, you can't, you know, rely on, on just economic models or just incentives. It needs to be something broader based. Because, I think, and maybe so young, maybe you'll agree with this, that, you know, the, I guess, the fundamental premise of a just transition is, you know, we need to transition to something that is just because what we have right now is not what we have right now is not just we have increasing inequality. We have disparities both historical, present, emerging. You know, we don't have anything approaching equity, and we don't have have anything that approaches an intergenerational view on these things. And, yeah, well, that was depressing. I'm sorry, but, you know, I think that's, that's maybe where, where we're sitting, you know, and trying to figure out, you know, how, how can we move forward in ways that are smart, but, you know, they need to be inclusive, they need to be transparent. Even if you know what what we're communicating about, you know jobs or communities maybe is perceived as negative right now. You know that. You know we need to have the difficult conversation. I guess is what I'm saying.

So-Young Lee  33:41

I agree. I mean, I couldn't agree more that there is no kind of national level successful stories yet I see, but locals and maybe city level at least, and, and also, you know, I mean, there is a, I mean, tendency that in this environmental and climate governance, I mean field area that we do position that Western I mean knowledge, Western development practice as as the only base for global environmental policy and solutions and but you know it, we have been ignoring there are various local values, and that's the missing Part, and we are keep want to reform this unsustainable system. So I'm not, you know, anti Western or accidentalist, but, but it's important at this moment when we talking about more. More fair just transition from now on. I don't think we need to stick with this, the concept of universal. I mean, there are plurals, right? Pluriverse worldview. There are 1000s, millions of local values we have forgotten, and that will help us to rethink our system, society and relationship with others. So it's not just me, but you know, many grassroots activists, practitioners, and there are so many of us, have been developed and brought back the important values. When I was writing my thesis, I was seeking the alternatives. You know, I lived in Eco villages, and I was with those people, off grid, outside of this system. And my supervisor, he is strong Marxist, and I respect him, but he was telling me that I have to think about this systematic change rather than those alternative ideas. But after 25 years later, now I see even the dictionary of plural verse. This is written by Khotari. He's famous in Indian, I think, activist. He has edited a book pluriverse, a dictionary, and it has list of ideas in there. Now I see even the dictionary of believers. So I can see the Eco village is one of them. And from A to Z, there are plenty of ideas. You know, it's, it has alternative currencies. You know, Buddhism is there when we were in Ecuador, is there commons, community economies, corps, deep ecology, growth, equanism, ecofeminism and food sovereignty, environmental justice is also there. Gross National Happiness, Bhutan, ah, Islamic ethics is there? Kyosei, I think it's Japanese term. Kyosei is also here. And what is localization? Permaculture, rural reconstruction, slow movement, social ecology, Tao Dao worldview is also there. Transition movement and Japanese autonomies in Mexico is the insert. It's, it's the last, I mean, the listeners of this podcast, can, I think, look for, I mean, this diverse of alternative ideas. We've lived, you know, to follow one development path. And that seems like you know, one answer that we believed in. But you know, there are huge number of people don't who was not able to be be part of that us or willing to be outside of that. You know, we and I have strong hope with the people outside of that, you know, path, and I believe there are majority of people who want to be outside of that system, but don't know what to do. So, I mean, it's it's good to reform the system to work sustainable and fair, but it's okay. But you know, I want to say that that okay shouldn't dominate the other values and ideas. I mean being misbelief in this current system is okay if you want to stay in there, that's fine. If you want to try to develop and reform that, that's also fine. But that shouldn't be the only way of living. There are plenty of, you know, many hundreds, 1000s, millions of ways of ideas and solutions and innovations. Then you know, if we can just extend our perspective from one to plural, then you can find the answer that fits to you. Then you can follow that path.

Dwayne Appleby  39:19

I think this is so so valuable to discuss this type of thing. And I think it reminds me of, you know, some previous work that I did, actually, before I joined, I just, but in collabouration with I just talking about kind of future visions of a good life. And, you know, like so young, you're so So, right? When you say that, you know, probably a majority of people don't really want to live in the system the way it is. They would rather have some alternative, you know, okay, it's okay to, yeah, you know, revise the system a little bit to to reform, to tinker at the edges. To, you know, raise the minimum wage, or, you know, change some regulation here or there. But fundamentally, I think a lot of people do want to have a different way of life, you know. And people do have different sets of values. But as as So Young said, you know, we were all reading from the same story book. We're telling the same story, and it wasn't always this way, which should tell us that it doesn't always have to be that way. And we can see even, you know, maybe just an example from Japan, you know, of course, you know, I remember this from studying development economics in university, that you know the power of changing the story that you're telling yourself about you know your proper place in the world, what is right and wrong, what you know the future can hold or not. You know is a good example the Meiji Restoration here in Japan, where the the entire country kind of changed its mind and said, No, we're going to try something different. And, you know, economic transformation followed. We see as well in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. You know, many countries there changed their economic model, changed their way of living. Yes, of course they were changing to the, you know, the capitalist model, the storybook that we're all now, you know, reading from together. But it does tell us that these types of transformations are possible, and I think that partially, I mean, probably due to, you know, the ease of communicating with each other. Now, I think many of these ideas that that so young kind of listed out there are spreading, you know, I can think eco villages are everywhere in the world now they've created kind of a movement around it that, you know, has some guiding principles, but is largely flexible, and you can make it hyper local. You know, I'm thinking of an organization called Dead Zed in the United Kingdom that, you know, bio regional. And you know, they have these intentional communities that are closed, loop, circular, and they have, now, you know, I think similar communities in in dozens of countries around the world. You know, this is, this is something that is possible. And perhaps this, this also could suggest to us that if we can agree on some type of framework at the at the higher level of, you know, the the necessity for just transition that's integrated with, you know, maybe, you know, we have to be bureaucratic and, you know, policy makers, so we have some, you know, targets of, you know, emissions and, you know, clean water and all of these things. But, you know, creating space in there for initiatives like these to nest inside while contributing to those kind of, I guess, meta level goals could be a good solution. Maybe this is one of the I don't be too critical of it, but maybe this is one of the stumbling blocks for the SDGs, is that I feel like there hasn't been enough emphasis on allowing many, many pathways towards towards achieving them, unlike with, you know, Paris agreement with the nationally determined contributions that are a little more flexible.

Alice Yamabe  43:23

Yeah, it's good to focus on what works at the very local level and get potentially inspiration, and then hopefully this can be integrated into larger models in the future. I feel like in the past six years, I've lived in Japan, and I don't really hear the term just transition being used in the policy talks as much as I do in the west or in the international levels. So I'm wondering if there is hesitancy to talk about this, or if there is just a different equivalent, or if we do talk about it, and maybe I've just haven't heard of it. So I'm just wondering, how does this term, this concept of just transition, apply to Asia as a region and the different countries within Asia.

So-Young Lee  44:11

I think it has yet received that much of wider tension, I mean, in Asia, of the current concept of just transition, and there was a kind of lack of relevant research that can guide just and sustainable societies in net zero Asia. Because, you know, transition is for the net zero to to achieve the net zero society. So it's it hasn't been widely adopted or taught. But as I mentioned before, there has been the scholars, I mean, in in this field, engaged with the environmental justice, climate justice issues. So I mean, when the the concept of just transition came up. Up since 2018 I think. I mean, I was discussing on the topic with those scholars, and started to collect some of those empirical studies in more real world settings. And then, luckily enough, in ideas, we had issued the special feature, I mean, that entitled just and sustainable transitions in net zero Asia in the sustainability science journal that IGS host, and that one presents, I think, well, of the diversity, variety of settings, how and the application of that just transition principles is tested and tried in Asia, somewhat, I think, well addressed these pressing environmental challenges, social inequities and climate injustice issues. But the thing I found very interesting is that most of those papers cases are very much dissimilar to the typical cases developed in highly industrialized countries, mostly in the US, because they have had decades of experience of core phase outs, right? But in Asia, it's not. It's in the very urgent request. For instance, China, they do have just transition. This terminology itself. In their five year plan for 2035 they put just transition, integrate social cohesion, rural urban revitalization and ecological civilization in their five year plan. And also, China plated a net zero target by 2060 and it's extremely ambitious climate commitment, they might face enormous pressure to maintain the energy security. Or, you know, when they face the coal use, it occupies, you know, half of the global production and their coal fired electricity. So it might be huge pressure, and at the same time this strong government is encouraging very rapid deployment of renewable energies. So another paper has been mentioned that this deployment of rooftop PVS in rural households in China, and they said they found it has been reduced. Much of the transparency of this is making process and also the opportunity of the residents to participate the energy plan. So, I mean, even it's rooftop PV renewable energies, it's, I mean, exactly the same thing is happening in in a country in Asia, and also these kind of, you know, Energy policy emphasize too much on monetary incentives and substance. So it's just merely increase the energy over consumption, rather than, you know, supporting the vulnerable groups in the communities. So again, I mean, what's the difference between the in the current energy system and the net zero transition we are asking for? I mean, of course, it would help the mitigate climate change. But apart from it, I mean, what we can see is exactly same thing happening in the real world and well in Japan, maybe example of just transition hasn't been really discussed, but the papers I've received from Japan is that one researcher has been working on The just transition approach from energy sector to food system, and then also, you know, in Asia, many areas in Asia, we depend on agricultural lifestyles and GHG emissions. Over 30% of it is produced by from agri food processes. So, and this researcher has been mentioned on urban agriculture that's been promoted for long in Japan, and success deeper look into the RE evaluation of existing lifestyles and values, this paper was quite encouraging to see How to Achieve just and sustainable food system transitions. And another one again from Japan, was talking about commons, not the idea of comments that justice between I can say that human society and nature and how. To manage this coastal wetlands that has been destroyed and suggest the community ownership of comments for the regenerative economy. Yeah, I mean, because you know, as you know, that this non human stakeholders can speak right? So there are biodiversity custodians, and often that's local communities, because they have lived in sustainable way with their environment for long, for centuries. So they have better and essential knowledges and practices of this biodiversity conservations. So I think, you know, there's scholars and researchers who work on not specifically the wording of just transition, but justice issues in Asia. I have plenty of optimistic ideas and suggestions. One more paper that I want to emphasize is the empirical analysis of Youth Climate activism in in Korea, and it's been highlighted a lot on equity issues. For long and interesting finding of this study is that these youth, the young generation activists, they request for the solidarity among all all disadvantaged, all marginalized segments of Korean society to fight against this existing inequality, not merely for their generation, for next generation's interest, because their understanding of the current generation or the older generation Is that you know, Korea, or many of the Asian countries, have the history of poverty, and you know the needs of the rapid development, economic development, I mean, to survive better than you know, to for the luxury as life, but really for their Survival. So somehow, you know it this kind of historical idea has been neutralized next generations criticisms. So in that in this case, you know, that kind of rhetoric we've learned that, you know, there is intergenerational conflicts between current and next generations that less fits adequately in this case. So I think it's it's interesting findings in there all those cases reiterate caution against one size fits all approach. So you know there are all different via different to design the pathways for just transitions and the all highlight the importance of local, context specific strategies. So I can see, you know, that's how the Asian scholars want to support ecologically sound and socially just transitions in Asia.

Alice Yamabe  53:16

Yeah, these are really great initiatives, and I think it really highlights, as you've said, the fact that in Asia, we might not really have a shared understanding of what the just transition may be for the region as a whole or for each country, but that it's usually about tackling the injustices at the local level and then finding solutions that would be tailored to solving those injustices. And I'm also just quickly wondering, as a last question, to Dwayne, what is your view on what is the just transition in Japan like, maybe in Japan or in Asia? Maybe you have this outsider point of view on what might be different from what you've known in back in Canada, or you studied in Europe as well. So what are some peculiarities in Asia?

Speaker 1  54:04

Yeah, I think this is a really good question. I think actually builds off of many of the thoughts that I was having when so young. Was just talking about these different examples. And, you know, my brain was doing the automatic, you know, comparative analysis and saying, Oh no, this would never work in Canada, or this would not work in the UK, they would take a completely different perspective on it. And really, I mean acknowledging as well. So Young said that, you know, many of the case studies and examples that make it into the global discussions, they're the Western examples. And so everybody thinks, oh, you know, you're phasing out coal or phasing out from energy. That means coal. But that's that's not really relevant to, you know, many Asian context situations. So I think it's really valuable to be acknowledging that there are different experiences in different places, and to say as well that, yeah, the majority of the. Actions. And I've in my brief time here in Japan, so far, I've noticed, and looking at just transitions, that it seems like nationally, prefectural level, etc. I think that the driving force in Japan around just transition is civil society and local government. It's these two that happen kind of hand in hand. And then maybe, you know, once they, you know, get some momentum, once they start seeing some success, then maybe government, you know, local government, city government, or prefecture will come in and say, Oh, we can help, you know, and they can, you know, add something to it, but it's still being driven by the local the local champions. Yeah, and I find that really quite interesting, because maybe it will not come as a surprise to anyone listening that you know, being from North America, and particularly the west coast of North America, I'm used to very hyper individualistic societies where you don't want to talk to your neighbors, you don't want to talk to anyone in your town, you have your friends, and you know, you don't really get involved in a lot of community led things. If there's a problem, you complain to the government, you know, and you want them to fix it. Whereas it seems like here in Japan, there is a deeper culture of community coming together to support one another. And I don't know if that you know comes from philosophical differences that Eastern and Western societies have. You know, Western society, our thinking goes back like Roman Greece, you know, these philosophical views. And whereas in the east is more like, you know, coming down to like Confucianism and Buddhism and these different views, and they do take a radically different perspective on on your role in society. And I guess that Justice aspect, you know, what do you deserve and what do you owe to society? What are the responsibilities that you have? And so I think, from my view, I'm more I think I'm more positive. I get a more positive view of potential futures here in Asia, here in Japan, because I see the willingness of people to step forward and help one another, instead of thinking, you know, well, if there's a problem, I'll just spend some money, or I will try and elect someone who will do something for it, and I don't have to engage with it. I think here Maybe, and maybe this is, you know, just me as a foreigner viewing it, and I don't really understand what's happening, but it seems like people are more willing to engage and and also, I mean, I see a lot more intergenerational connections here, and that's also very encouraging, because part of part of justice and part of just transition is continuity, right? Is carrying forward traditions, carrying forward society and culture. I think these are the things that give us strength in times when we're being tested. You know when, when disruption is happening. I think these are the things that we can rely on, and that means relying on each other, and so, yeah, I don't know if maybe that means that, you know, I think Japan will, will have a better time of transition than, say, Canada will. But I think there's certainly, yeah, reason to be encouraged and hopeful just because of, yeah, the engagement of kind of just normal people in their community, you know, being if it's hyper local, or if it's just in Kanagawa or something, but, and I'll add one other thing, that there was a case study that I came across looking at just transitions in Japan. It was from Yubari city in Hokkaido. It was a coal town back in, you know, and it kind of shut down the mine ended in the 70s and 80s. And so interestingly, it could be a comparative analysis of how coal mining town transitions in Japan versus the standard one that we hear about in somewhere in Appalachia in North America or something like that, because it seems like here in Japan, the experience was to really engage in community revitalization. And, you know, I think it was fairly successful, whereas I think in North America there's a greater willingness to discard communities as outdated because, you know, the technology has moved on, or something like that. There's not really a tie to the culture and the place in the same way that maybe there is here. But, yeah, it might be interesting to take a look at the case of gubari city at some point.

Alice Yamabe  59:38

Those are really great examples. Thank you so much. Are there any points that you'd like to add, any last insights that you feel like you need to share?

So-Young Lee  59:57

If I can emphasize that you. Know, the just transition global discussions. I mean, they try hard to bring people into the table by saying, you know, participatory and inclusiveness, and it would be very difficult, I mean, to have dialog among those different stakeholders. But it would be really tough task. There are already, you know, plenty of substantial changes on the ground happening right? There are plenty countless bottom up actions, so the top down policies, if we need to keep it from the government. They I think should support them rather than doing something else. Support them with those contributions outside in contributions of ideas, knowledges, experience, wisdom of locals, I mean Indigenous women, into developing, implementing all those innovative solutions, so supporting would be sufficient and I would believe that could minimise negative impacts. And also at the same time maximise equality.

Speaker 1  1:01:15

And I want to maybe expand on that a little bit, or maybe use a different term, for some reason, was popular this last year, in some of the English language global media, that maybe what needs to happen, rather than having government tell everyone what to do, or be very prescriptive, is to create a permission structure that says it's okay to do these things. And if you want to set up a community like this, you want to go into, you know, experiment with different things. You know, we have regulations that allow this to happen. You know, in some ways it's government getting out of the way, but it's also, you know, government being there to lend a hand if it's needed. I think this type of very flexible structure is is the way to go. And I think it allows, you know, to continue the metaphor of storytelling from earlier. It allows more people and more communities to start telling their own stories, you know, to become authors in their own lives. And, you know, really, we talk about Liberty a lot and having freedom, but I think so young mentioned this earlier, is that like, okay, so we have some transition. We change energy, but we're not really addressing the issue of over consumption. We're just saying, Okay, if you're going to over consume so much energy and so much material and stuff, I get, you know, we'll, we'll make it a little cleaner. We'll make it a little this. And we're not changing that fundamental story that to be happy is to consume. You know, to to be successful is to have conspicuous consumption. Let other people see that you wearing some brand or, you know, things like that. You know, it allows us to really start to redefine our own values. And so I think that that that would be an interesting, you know, kind of next step that we could start exploring, maybe just as an additional resource to mention for people in talking about theories of justice, professor from Harvard's Kennedy School, Michael Sandel, on YouTube, you can find his course on justice that he's been teaching for many, many years. It does draw primarily on Western sources of justice, going back to the Greeks, but you know modern things. John Rawls, etc. John Stuart Mill, but he does a very good job of laying out theories of justice in an accessible way. And so I think it's very, very useful, because I think that as we look at just transition, as we see, many governments are struggling to understand what a just transition is, to come with the definition at the same time as recognizing that there's real urgency for us to respond and to do something quickly to address climate change, to address pollution, biodiversity loss, all of these things. And so one thing that we can start to do is equip ourselves with an understanding of of, you know, the fundamental ideas that were that are at play here, so that as we do start taking those steps forward, you know, we have a solid foundation. Because I think that it could be risky if we just start doing things and don't have a solid grounding. So maybe our role as researchers can be to start providing some of that knowledge to policymakers in accessible ways so that they can really understand this and be well equipped to create whether it's those permission structures, policies, whatever they are you

Bob  1:05:14

Thank you for listening to “About Sustainability”. Please subscribe@podcast.iges.jp or search for about sustainability wherever you normally get your podcasts. If you've got feedback, you can review us on your podcast directory of choice, or reach out on Twitter at IGES, underscore en about sustainability is produced by the Institute for Global Environmental strategies. Any views expressed during the podcast are those of the speaker at the time of recording and do not necessarily reflect the views of IGES. Thank you for choosing to spend your time with us. We don't take that lightly, and we hope you'll join us next time.