It’s All in the Mind(set): Understanding the “Climate Justice” Approach
“Climate justice,” a term that encourages an understanding of the climate crisis as a social and political problem as well as an ecological one, has its roots in sustainability thinking, which makes the concept useful as a framework for “thriving in perpetuity.”[1] But what does it mean to take this very long view? How would our mindset need to shift?
There are so many possible interpretations of sustainability, with some of the more familiar driven by a particular mode of thinking or focus on a particular angle of such a complicated topic. In this series, SCA Sustainability Director, ANDRÉS MONTENEGRO, explores different sustainability frameworks in relation to the SCA’s sustainability agenda of equitable value distribution, beginning with “climate justice.”
“There are at least two kinds of games,” wrote Dr. James P. Carse. “One could be called finite; the other, infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play.”[2] The idea that the type of game you choose to play shapes your mindset—or even evolves our collective culture, transforming society, and dictating market functioning—is key when understanding a sustainability framework like climate justice. What is usually overlooked in this statement, though, is that the key difference in both games are the classes of participants: finite games have two categories, winners and losers; infinite games, just one: players. In other words, infinite games are only possible if we remove the need to “win.”
Although current market system dynamics might not prioritize a longer perspective of things, who in the coffee industry would be against making coffee better forever? But here is the twist—and the justice angle—we can only do this if we endeavor to make coffee better forever, for all.
Climate justice, as a technical term, simply acknowledges an unpleasant reality of the ongoing impacts of the climate crisis: those who are least responsible (having generated far fewer emissions) will not only be hit the hardest, but are also in the unenviable position of having the least capacity to cope with the impacts of increasing climate disruption. In the coffee industry, as we’ve previously established in the Price Crisis Response summary of work, the most exposed and vulnerable actors are (smallholder) farmers and farmworkers. Rather than consensus, awareness of the looming problem—which we have well established at this point!—is a prerequisite for addressing it, and at the risk of oversimplifying, there is a clear baseline for the conversation: a thriving specialty coffee sector requires a solid input of green coffee with reliable volumes and a diverse pool of valuable bean attributes. What could a framework like climate justice offer us in clarifying a path to achieving this kind of thriving coffee sector?
Through the lens of climate justice, we can realize the impacts of inequitable value distribution compounding, in real time, as climate disruption is accelerating the loss of suitability of coffee producing regions, disturbing further our already unstable green coffee supply and (commodity) pricing. It gives us a sense of urgency—but will also test our ingenuity and resolution as an industry even further. Climate justice also requires us to assume a mindset where we are not only “finding solutions to the climate crisis that reduce emissions or protect the natural world, but that do so in a way which creates a fairer, more just, and more equal world in the process.”[3] We need to raise for collective well-being.
The Kuznets curve, in a nutshell states that as countries get richer, inequality must rise before it (eventually) fall. Tests to the curve have being made in the last couple of decades, generating discouraging results that challenge orthodox economic thoughts on inequality. The former Assistant Secretary of Treasury for Economic Policy of the US (2009-2010), Dr. Alan Krueger, provided a wonderful clarification of the concept in a New York Times column.[5]
Climate justice, as a concept, reminds us that inequality is a designed and an intentional choice. In the coffee system, this is reflected in the aggregated decisions (or omissions) of the intervening actors—of us all—but we can also acknowledge that it stretches beyond the coffee industry as a broader societal challenge, which reaffirms the need to tilt the system towards sustainability. Economists have clever (but questionable) models to illustrate that progress requires inequality,[4] but not only is it avoidable, equality is prerequisite for a healthy long-term perspective of our society, markets, and the specialty coffee industry. Maintaining a diversity of flavors and opportunities to innovate, from production to preparation, is essential for a thriving specialty coffee industry, and a sound strategy for all coffee system actors, but it is only possible if we are equitable and distributive by default and design.
So: What does it mean to design for equality? Let’s look at a tangible innovation in the coffee industry: carbon offsetting, “an action or activity to reduce or remove emissions of carbon dioxide or other green house gasses from the atmosphere in order to compensate for emissions made elsewhere.”[6] This is usually overlapped with complementary actions on carbon adaptation and mitigation in coffee producing regions. While carbon offsetting was developed with the goal of achieving carbon neutrality, it is not inherently related to climate justice or designed equitably—although it is a sound effort for any serious company working to embed sustainable sourcing practices on their operations. The practice of carbon offsetting, employed without a climate justice mentality that designs for equality, is merely a set of technical requirements: carbon credits, often made available from unrelated projects, are purchased to offset emissions. In order for offsetting to contribute to climate justice, it would require active involvement with sourcing partners, benefiting them intentionally and directly from the carbon credits purchase. Ideally, this equitable offsetting harmonizes with activities to expand shade coverage and regenerative practices that support soil and watersheds health, further impacting the community wellbeing of these producing regions.
When offsetting projects are designed to be equitable—when they are designed under the paradigm of climate justice—the simple, intentional approach triggers long-term virtuous cycles of value that strengthen farmers livelihoods and wellbeing. It goes beyond the initial increased income from carbon credits, but boosts coffee quality and volumes, helping to create a firmer foundation for communities to cope with negative climate and market shocks.[7] Prosperous farmers are likely to increase their capacity to expand their regenerative practices within their farms, transforming coffee producing regions in environmentally rich carbon sinks (net negative coffee production), supporting commitments to “cutting green house emissions as close to zero as possible.”[8] This, in turn, might allow them to leverage these commitments in their operations, generating tangible systemic impacts while mitigating the risk of stumbling with green washing claims.
Climate justice could be a beacon for decision-making, a tool to create awareness of the need of integrate all the relevant actors in the coffee system to address the complex challenges of the climate crisis, leaving no one behind, and connecting claims with actions that distribute value and prosperity across the coffee value chain. If the (coffee) system reflects the nature of the intervener(s),[9] a climate justice lens helps us to understand were our priorities are as an industry.
Climate justice offers us another way of understanding this idea of the role intentional changes in value distribution have an impact on the way we work towards a thriving future for coffee and all its actors. It offers us another way to understand the “take less” principle at the core of the SCA’s own sustainability agenda to shape behaviors and mindsets around how specialty coffee’s value is created, measured, and distributed in the coffee system. But perhaps, most importantly, it could be a useful tool in helping us to think long-term and make intentional choices in how we work together, as players in this infinite game of coffee—and life.
ANDRÉS MONTENEGRO is the Specialty Coffee Association’s Sustainability Director.
[1] What is Sustainability? University of Alberta, Office of Sustainability.
[2] Dr. James P. Carse. Finite and Infinite Games. The Free Press, 1986.
[3] Take Climate Action UK. “What is climate justice?” Accessed October 22, 2022. https://takeclimateaction.uk/resources/what-climate-justice
[4] The Kuzents curve. Source: Sabrina Jiang. Investopedia, 2020.
[5] Krueger, A. “Economic scene: when it comes to income inequality, more than just market forces are at work”. New York Times, 4 April 2002. Accessed November 1, 2022.
[6] Specialty Coffee Association (SCA). Carbon and Coffee: GHG Emission Reductions Progress and Strategies Across the Value Chain. SCA, 2022.
[7] A good example of these impacts where shared by Shauna Alexander at the SCA’s Green Coffee Summit 2020. See the video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPbV6l1AEpY&t=393s
[8] The United Nations. “For a liveable climate: Net-zero commitments must be backed by credible action.” Accessed October 22, 2022. https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/net-zero-coalition
[9] Senge, P. The fifth discipline: the art & practice of the learning organization. Currency, 2010.