Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Justice considerations in climate research

Nature Climate Change volume 14, pages 22–30 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Climate change and decarbonization raise complex justice questions that researchers and policymakers must address. The distributions of greenhouse gas emissions rights and mitigation efforts have dominated justice discourses within scenario research, an integrative element of the IPCC. However, the space of justice considerations is much larger. At present, there is no consistent approach to comprehensively incorporate and examine justice considerations. Here we propose a conceptual framework grounded in philosophical theory for this purpose. We apply this framework to climate mitigation scenarios literature as proof of concept, enabling a more holistic and multidimensional investigation of justice. We identify areas of future research, including new metrics of service provisioning essential for human well-being.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: A justice framework to guide climate research and policy discussions.
Fig. 2: Distributional justice patterns, indicators and implementation approaches in the SSP literature.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. IPCC Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).

  2. Robinson, M. & Shine, T. Achieving a climate justice pathway to 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 564–569 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alemayehou, M. et al. Reframing Climate Justice for Development (Energy for Growth Hub, 2021).

  4. Carley, S. & Konisky, D. M. The justice and equity implications of the clean energy transition. Nat. Energy 5, 569–577 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gardiner, S. M. Ethics and global climate change. Ethics 114, 555–600 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dolšak, N. & Prakash, A. Three faces of climate justice. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 25, 283–301 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Grasso, M. A normative ethical framework in climate change. Climatic Change 81, 223–246 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Krueger, T., Page, T., Hubacek, K., Smith, L. & Hiscock, K. The role of expert opinion in environmental modelling. Environ. Model. Softw. 36, 4–18 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Caney, S. Just emissions. Phil. Public Aff. 40, 255–300 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Newell, P., Srivastava, S., Naess, L. O., Torres Contreras, G. A. & Price, R. Toward transformative climate justice: an emerging research agenda. WIREs Clim. Change 12, e733 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. van Beek, L., Oomen, J., Hajer, M., Pelzer, P. & van Vuuren, D. Navigating the political: an analysis of political calibration of integrated assessment modelling in light of the 1.5 °C goal. Environ. Sci. Policy 133, 193–202 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dooley, K. et al. Ethical choices behind quantifications of fair contributions under the Paris Agreement. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 300–305 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fleurbaey, M. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) Ch. 4 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  14. Victor, D. G., Carraro, C. & Olmstead, S. M. in Architectures for Agreement: Addressing Global Climate Change in the Post-Kyoto World (eds Aldy, J. E. & Stavins, R. N.) 133–184 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  15. Klinsky, S. et al. Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research. Glob. Environ. Change 44, 170–173 (2017). Klinsky et al. debate the relevancy of questions of equity in climate policy research.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bergquist, M., Nilsson, A., Harring, N. & Jagers, S. C. Meta-analyses of fifteen determinants of public opinion about climate change taxes and laws. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 235–240 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice (Harvard Univ. Press, 1971). Rawls developed the distinctions between distributive and procedural justice, in particular the role of procedural justice in making an outcome just or merely providing evidence for the just outcome. Our account of transitional justice developed Rawlsian ideas.

  18. Miller, D. in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (eds Zalta, E. N. & Nodelman, U.) https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/justice/ (Stanford Univ., 2021). Miller offers a key summary of the justice literature in philosophy and, importantly for our project, indicates how corrective and distributive justice are orthogonal to each other.

  19. Macron, E. et al. 'A green transition that leaves no one behind’: world leaders release open letter. The Guardian (20 June 2023).

  20. Wallimann-Helmer, I., Meyer, L., Mintz-Woo, K., Schinko, T. & Serdeczny, O. in Loss and Damage from Climate Change: Concepts, Methods and Policy Options (eds Mechler, R. et al.) 39–62 (Springer, 2019).

  21. Hourdequin, M. Geoengineering justice: the role of recognition. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 44, 448–477 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Preston, C. & Carr, W. Recognitional justice, climate engineering, and the care approach. Ethics Policy Environ. 21, 308–323 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Linsenmeier, M., Mohommad, A. & Schwerhoff, G. Policy sequencing towards carbon pricing among the world’s largest emitters. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 1107–1110 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Sommons, A. J. Ideal and nonideal theory. Phil. Public Aff. 38, 5–36 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. World Commission on Environment and Development Our Common Future (Oxford Univ. Press, 1987).

  26. Deutsch, M. Equity, equality, and need: what determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? J. Soc. Issues 31, 137–149 (1975).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sen, A. in Tanner Lectures on Human Values Vol. 1 (ed. McMurrin, S. M.) 195–220 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1980).

  28. Sen, A. What do we want from a theory of justice? J. Phil. 103, 215–238 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Shue, H. Subsistence emissions and luxury emissions. Law Policy 15, 39–60 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rubiano Rivadeneira, N. & Carton, W. (In)justice in modelled climate futures: a review of integrated assessment modelling critiques through a justice lens. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 92, 102781 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Morgan, M. G. & Mellon, C. Certainty, uncertainty, and climate change. Climatic Change 108, 707 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Heath, J. Climate ethics: justifying a positive social time preference. J. Moral Phil. 14, 435–462 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Adler, M. et al. Priority for the worse-off and the social cost of carbon. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 443–449 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Arneson, R. J. Prioritarianism (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).

  35. Parfit, D. Equality and priority. Ratio 10, 202–221 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Casal, P. Why sufficiency is not enough. Ethics 117, 296–326 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Herlitz, A. The indispensability of sufficientarianism. Crit. Rev. Int. Soc. Polit. Phil. 22, 929–942 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Huseby, R. Sufficiency and the threshold question. J. Ethics 24, 207–223 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rao, N. D. & Min, J. Decent living standards: material prerequisites for human wellbeing. Soc. Indic. Res. 138, 225–244 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Robeyns, I. Why limitarianism?. J. Polit. Phil. 30, 249–270 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Miner, K. et al. The co-production of knowledge for climate science. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01633-4 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Fehr, C. in Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science: Power in Knowledge (ed. Grasswick, H.) 133–154 (Springer, 2011).

  43. Caney, S. Justice and future generations. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 21, 475–493 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Perkins, P. E. in Routledge Handbook of Climate Justice 349–358 (Routledge, 2018).

  45. Whyte, K. Too late for indigenous climate justice: ecological and relational tipping points. WIREs Clim. Change 11, e603 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Gay-Antaki, M. & Liverman, D. Climate for women in climate science: women scientists and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 2060–2065 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Ravikumar, A. P. et al. Enabling an equitable energy transition through inclusive research. Nat. Energy https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-022-01145-z (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Jafino, B. A., Kwakkel, J. H. & Taebi, B. Enabling assessment of distributive justice through models for climate change planning: a review of recent advances and a research agenda. WIREs Clim. Change 12, e721 (2021). Jafino et al. discuss ways for IAMS to tackle different distributional justice issues.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Beck, M. & Krueger, T. The epistemic, ethical, and political dimensions of uncertainty in integrated assessment modeling. WIREs Clim. Change 7, 627–645 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Klinsky, S. & Winkler, H. Building equity in: strategies for integrating equity into modelling for a 1.5 °C world. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 376, 20160461 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lenzi, D., Lamb, W. F., Hilaire, J., Kowarsch, M. & Minx, J. C. Don’t deploy negative emissions technologies without ethical analysis. Nature 561, 303–305 (2018).

  52. O’Neill, B. C. et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Climatic Change 122, 387–400 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Riahi, K. et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. van Vuuren, D. P. et al. The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Climatic Change 109, 5 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. O’Neill, B. C. et al. Achievements and needs for the climate change scenario framework. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 1074–1084 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Pedersen, J. T. S. et al. IPCC emission scenarios: how did critiques affect their quality and relevance 1990–2022? Glob. Environ. Change 75, 102538 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. van Ruijven, B. J. et al. Forum on Scenarios for Climate and Societal Futures: Meeting Report (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 2022).

  58. Green, C. et al. Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) Literature Database v1 (2014–2019) (NASA SEDAC, 2021).

  59. Green, C. et al. Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) Literature Database v2 (2020–2021; Preliminary Release) (NASA SEDAC, 2022).

  60. O’Neill, B. C. et al. The roads ahead: narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 169–180 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (eds Nakicenovic, N. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).

  62. Ebi, K. L. et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: background, process, and future directions. Climatic Change 122, 363–372 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. KC, S. & Lutz, W. The human core of the shared socioeconomic pathways: population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 181–192 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Kriegler, E. et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared climate policy assumptions. Climatic Change 122, 401–414 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Bauer, N. et al. Quantification of an efficiency–sovereignty trade-off in climate policy. Nature 588, 261–266 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Liu, J.-Y., Fujimori, S. & Masui, T. Temporal and spatial distribution of global mitigation cost: INDCs and equity. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 114004 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Höhne, N., den Elzen, M. & Escalante, D. Regional GHG reduction targets based on effort sharing: a comparison of studies. Clim. Policy 14, 122–147 (2014).

  68. Robiou du Pont, Y. et al. Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 38–43 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. van den Berg, N. J. et al. Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways. Climatic Change 162, 1805–1822 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Pachauri, S., Poblete-Cazenave, M., Aktas, A. & Gidden, M. J. Access to clean cooking services in energy and emission scenarios after COVID-19. Nat. Energy 6, 1067–1076 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Hasegawa, T., Havlík, P., Frank, S., Palazzo, A. & Valin, H. Tackling food consumption inequality to fight hunger without pressuring the environment. Nat. Sustain. 2, 826–833 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Grubler, A. et al. A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 °C target and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies. Nat. Energy 3, 515–527 (2018). Grubler et al. describe a scenario that reflects sufficientarian and limitarian patterns for diverse services and goods related to energy demand.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Soergel, B. et al. A sustainable development pathway for climate action within the UN 2030 Agenda. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 656–664 (2021). Soergel et al. study a scenario satisfying diverse indicators related to human well-being.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Steininger, K. W., Williges, K., Meyer, L. H., Maczek, F. & Riahi, K. Sharing the effort of the European Green Deal among countries. Nat. Commun. 13, 3673 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Żebrowski, P., Dieckmann, U., Brännström, Å., Franklin, O. & Rovenskaya, E. Sharing the burdens of climate mitigation and adaptation: incorporating fairness perspectives into policy optimization models. Sustainability 14, 3737 (2022). Żebrowski et al. discuss different patterns of distributive justice and how models could implement them.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Ueckerdt, F. et al. The economically optimal warming limit of the planet. Earth Syst. Dynam. 10, 741–763 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Chen, Y., Liu, A. & Cheng, X. Quantifying economic impacts of climate change under nine future emission scenarios within CMIP6. Sci. Total Environ. 703, 134950 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Benveniste, H., Boucher, O., Guivarch, C., Treut, H. L. & Criqui, P. Impacts of nationally determined contributions on 2030 global greenhouse gas emissions: uncertainty analysis and distribution of emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 014022 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. King, A. D. & Harrington, L. J. The inequality of climate change from 1.5 to 2 °C of global warming. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 5030–5033 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Yang, P. et al. Solely economic mitigation strategy suggests upward revision of nationally determined contributions. One Earth 4, 1150–1162 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Pye, S. et al. An equitable redistribution of unburnable carbon. Nat. Commun. 11, 3968 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Byers, E. et al. Global exposure and vulnerability to multi-sector development and climate change hotspots. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 055012 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Bijl, D. L. et al. A physically-based model of long-term food demand. Glob. Environ. Change 45, 47–62 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. van Meijl, H. et al. Modelling alternative futures of global food security: insights from FOODSECURE. Glob. Food Secur. 25, 100358 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Molotoks, A., Smith, P. & Dawson, T. P. Impacts of land use, population, and climate change on global food security. Food Energy Secur. 10, e261 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Jaccard, I. S., Pichler, P.-P., Többen, J. & Weisz, H. The energy and carbon inequality corridor for a 1.5 °C compatible and just Europe. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 064082 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Millward-Hopkins, J. & Oswald, Y. ‘Fair’ inequality, consumption and climate mitigation. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 034007 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Mitter, H. et al. Shared Socio-economic Pathways for European agriculture and food systems: the Eur-Agri-SSPs. Glob. Environ. Change 65, 102159 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Palazzo, A. et al. Linking regional stakeholder scenarios and shared socioeconomic pathways: quantified West African food and climate futures in a global context. Glob. Environ. Change 45, 227–242 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Pachauri, S. et al. Fairness considerations in global mitigation investments. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adf0067 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Ellenbeck, S. & Lilliestam, J. How modelers construct energy costs: discursive elements in energy system and integrated assessment models. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 47, 69–77 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Majszak, M. & Jebeile, J. Expert judgment in climate science: how it is used and how it can be justified. Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 100, 32–38 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Drupp, M. A., Freeman, M. C., Groom, B. & Nesje, F. Discounting disentangled. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 10, 109–34 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Fleurbaey, M. et al. The social cost of carbon: valuing inequality, risk, and population for climate policy. Monist 102, 84–109 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Mintz-Woo, K. in The Impacts of Climate Change (ed. Letcher, T. M.) 521–535 (Elsevier, 2021).

  97. Wei, Y.-M. et al. Self-preservation strategy for approaching global warming targets in the post-Paris Agreement era. Nat. Commun. 11, 1624 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Clayton, S. The role of perceived justice, political ideology, and individual or collective framing in support for environmental policies. Soc. Justice Res. 31, 219–237 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Meckling, J., Sterner, T. & Wagner, G. Policy sequencing toward decarbonization. Nat. Energy 2, 918–922 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Meyer, L. H. & Sanklecha, P. (eds) Climate Justice and Historical Emissions (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017).

  101. Mintz-Woo, K. & Leroux, J. What do climate change winners owe, and to whom? Econ. Phil. 37, 462–483 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Kothari, A., Demaria, F. & Acosta, A. Buen vivir, degrowth and ecological swaraj: alternatives to sustainable development and the green economy. Development 57, 362–375 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. McCauley, D. & Heffron, R. Just transition: integrating climate, energy and environmental justice. Energy Policy 119, 1–7 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Dearing, J. A. et al. Safe and just operating spaces for regional social-ecological systems. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 227–238 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Lamb, W. F. et al. Discourses of climate delay. Glob. Sustain. 3, e17 (2020).

  106. Peng, W. et al. Climate policy models need to get real about people—here’s how. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01500-2 (2021).

  107. Budolfson, M. B. et al. Utilitarian benchmarks for emissions and pledges promote equity, climate and development. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 827–833 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Beiser-McGrath, L. F. & Bernauer, T. Could revenue recycling make effective carbon taxation politically feasible? Sci. Adv. 5, eaax3323 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Caroline Zimm, Kian Mintz-Woo.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria

    Caroline Zimm, Kian Mintz-Woo, Elina Brutschin, Susanne Hanger-Kopp, Roman Hoffmann, Jarmo S. Kikstra, Michael Kuhn, Jihoon Min, Raya Muttarak, Shonali Pachauri, Omkar Patange, Keywan Riahi & Thomas Schinko

  2. Department of Philosophy and Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

    Kian Mintz-Woo

  3. Climate Policy Lab, Department for Environmental Systems Science, ETH Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Susanne Hanger-Kopp

  4. The Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Jarmo S. Kikstra

  5. Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Jarmo S. Kikstra

  6. Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Raya Muttarak

  7. University of Graz, Graz, Austria

    Keywan Riahi

Authors
  1. Caroline Zimm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kian Mintz-Woo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elina Brutschin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Susanne Hanger-Kopp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Roman Hoffmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jarmo S. Kikstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael Kuhn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jihoon Min
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Raya Muttarak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Shonali Pachauri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Omkar Patange
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Keywan Riahi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Thomas Schinko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Caroline Zimm or Kian Mintz-Woo.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Climate Change thanks Can Wang, Dominic Roser, Simona Capisani and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2, Tables 1–4, Methods and Discussion.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zimm, C., Mintz-Woo, K., Brutschin, E. et al. Justice considerations in climate research. Nat. Clim. Chang. 14, 22–30 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01869-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01869-0

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing