Interview: Joyeeta Gupta calls for just allocation of the Earth’s resources within its boundaries

In rich countries, two major mistakes have been made: First, market mechanisms have outsourced emissions reductions to other countries, preventing local populations in the North from waking up to the need for climate action. This has left many in the Global North unmotivated to act. Second, environmental subsidies have mainly benefitted the wealthy, who can afford upfront costs for solar panels or electric cars. Those who need support the most have been left out, creating resentment and a lack of climate action among poorer populations, leading to them voting in governments that resist climate policies.

Justice is critical to convincing people in both the Global South and North to act urgently. Without it, we cannot achieve rapid emissions reductions or prevent catastrophic climate impacts. A just approach to climate change is crucial.

Three I’s—intergenerational, intragenerational and interspecies justice—help define just boundaries for climate action. Companies typically focus only on profits and shareholders, but justice requires recognizing the impact on people far away (recognition justice) and adopting a broader scientific perspective beyond profit (epistemic justice).

• Interspecies justice concerns our respect for other species by controlling climate change, by leaving water for them, and reducing our pollution which also affects their health. 
• Intergenerational justice considers the future—if we deplete resources and pollute air and water, future generations will suffer. 
• Intragenerational justice addresses inequality between rich and poor, North and South—if wealthier countries consume all resources, little remains for poorer nations.

These principles guide three key questions: how to prevent harm to people and species; how to meet basic human needs sustainably and how to transform society to ensure just allocation of resources, risks and responsibilities.

Over the past 30 years, six major climate injustices have led to our current crisis.

1. Delaying climate action. By 1990, we already knew that staying below 1°C was safe, 1-2°C would cause harm to some regions, and beyond 2°C would bring suffering to all. Yet, no global target was set until 2015. This delay allowed rich countries to burn fossil fuels freely while leaving little carbon budget for poor nations.
2. Failure to fairly allocate the remaining carbon budget. By 2015, it was too late to divide emissions fairly between rich and poor countries, so each nation was left to act voluntarily. The result is insufficient pledges that could lead to at least 2.7°C of warming. Now, people in many industrialized nations are electing governments that oppose climate action, pushing temperatures even higher and endangering everyone.
3. Wrongful assumption that the carbon budget is like a finite cake—once three-quarters is used up, a quarter remains. In reality, most fossil fuel reserves (78%) now exist in  the Global South, which are expected to abandon them at great economic cost. Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry, worth up to three times global GDP, holds enormous power over governments, preventing real climate action. Climate decisions are held back by fossil fuel interests.
4. Wealthy nations reduced emissions abroad instead of at home through market mechanisms. This outsourcing prevented societies in the Global North from engaging in structural change. Without public awareness and preparedness, deep emission cuts remain politically and socially difficult.
5. Immense damage already being caused by climate change. At least USD15 million in climate-related damage occurs every hour, a figure that is likely to be outdated due to increasing disasters. Insurance companies are withdrawing from high-risk areas, leaving governments—and ultimately taxpayers—to cover the costs. Poor countries, which face the worst effects, lack the financial resources to recover, making this a profound global injustice.
6. Our narrow, outdated economic focus. The world still prioritizes GDP growth, encouraging all countries to move up the income ladder while refusing to shrink excessive consumption in wealthy nations. GDP does not account for environmental destruction or health costs. A just approach would prioritize human and environmental health over economic growth.

Ultimately, these injustices show that climate change is not just an environmental issue but a justice issue. Without addressing these systemic failures, we cannot build a fair and sustainable future.

To allocate environmental space equitably, we must first meet everyone’s basic needs within planetary limits. However, key resources like land and water are becoming scarce due to overuse and unequal access.

Fertile land is rapidly depleting. Wealthy individuals and corporations are buying land in poorer countries as an investment: this is land grabbing. Water is even more complex because it operates within a hydrological cycle that must be maintained for rainfall, agriculture and drinking water. Governments must be held accountable for protecting this cycle, making water a global public good, rather than a global common good. If responsibility is spread too widely, no one is accountable when the system fails.

Water is allocated through fragmented systems like property rights, permits and contracts, which do not reflect its interconnected nature. Instead of allowing wealthy nations and individuals to monopolize resources, we need a new approach that ensures fair distribution. A different allocation system is essential to prevent environmental resources from being controlled by the few, ensuring sustainable access for all.

• The neoliberal capitalist approach relies on pricing and markets, but it is neither effective nor just, especially when private contracts and secret arbitration control essential resources like food and water. 
• The second option, hegemonic power, prioritizes national interests over global cooperation, as seen in the US currently, but also in upstream countries refusing to share transboundary water. However, such an approach inevitably leads to conflict.
• In Elinor Ostrom’s polycentric governance model, multiple centres experiment with solutions. This may have been effective in the past, but it does not fully address the global challenges of the Anthropocene. 
• Instead, a global constitution is needed, one that holds leaders and corporations accountable beyond their short terms in office. At present, prime ministers, presidents and CEOs fail to take responsibility for the long-term consequences of their actions. A global constitution would ensure accountability for future impacts.

Radical transformation in our economic, legal and governance systems can help ensure a just and sustainable future. A flourishing democracy must eliminate extreme inequality, promote life-long learning on science and environmental issues, and combat misinformation. Social media regulation is crucial to prevent the spread of disinformation, which threatens democracy.

In the current situation, both the Global North and South have to reduce their emissions to net zero. But the Global South should not copy the North’s mistakes, or they will get locked into an infrastructure that they cannot get out of. 

Given global environmental and social stresses, and the threat of civil wars, democracy must be reinvigorated to create a just world and prevent unrest. A global constitution, written by the people, could help achieve this.