ABSTRACT

Transition to a post-carbon economy implies changes that are both far-reaching and unprecedented. The notion that a decarbonization transition must encompass multiple forms of justice is gaining ground. In response, the concept of Just Transition has become ever more popular – and confusion about its meaning ever greater. We argue in this paper that the term Just Transition needs a rigorous updating to develop its full conceptual power for the analysis and evaluation of the rapid and extensive energy transitions already underway. After reviewing the different uses of Just Transition in practice and scholarship, we propose that the term be used as an analytical concept for an ongoing process of transition. The Just Transition concept can provide an integrated, whole-system perspective on justice (procedural, distributive, recognition, and restorative) that can help in identifying systemic solutions to address environmental and socio-economic concerns. This would differ from reductionist approaches that derive from legacy silo-sectoral or technologically driven approaches; these too often overlook negative side-effects and wider justice implications of reorganizing economic practice. An examination of COVID-19 pandemic responses illustrates our operationalization of the Just Transition concept, highlighting the importance of designing whole-system policies that are equitable, as well as the pitfalls of pursuing a narrow sectoral approach. Taking seriously the implications of complex systems with hard-to-predict effects also has concrete implications for policy interventions at all levels of governance. In particular, we highlight the importance of attending to multiple social inequalities for ensuring the resilience of whole-system decarbonization in the face of instability, unpredictability, and unprecedented change.

Key policy insights

• The transition to net-zero will be neither sustainable nor credible if it creates or worsens social inequalities; a backlash is likely if the transition is not perceived to be just.

• Pathways forward may only emerge through observation, experimentation, and experience.

• A range of policy tools exist to address Just Transition concerns. These include addressing social and environmental aspects of economic policy; making sure that interventions are adapted to local contexts; building democratic engagement platforms; and open and transparent communication.

• Job creation does not guarantee just outcomes, as justice goes beyond employment conditions.

中文翻译：

---

公正过渡：脱碳的全系统方法

摘要

向后碳经济转型意味着影响深远且史无前例的变化。脱碳转型必须包含多种形式的正义的观念正在逐渐普及。作为回应，Just Transition 的概念变得越来越流行——人们对其含义的困惑也越来越大。我们在本文中认为，“公正转型”一词需要严格更新，以充分发挥其概念能力，以分析和评估已经在进行的快速和广泛的能源转型。在回顾了 Just Transition 在实践和学术中的不同用途之后，我们建议将该术语用作一个持续的过渡过程的分析概念。公正过渡概念可以提供一个关于公正的综合的、全系统的观点（程序、分配、承认、和恢复性），可以帮助确定解决环境和社会经济问题的系统性解决方案。这将不同于源自传统筒仓部门或技术驱动方法的还原论方法；这些往往忽视了重组经济实践的负面影响和更广泛的正义影响。对 COVID-19 大流行应对措施的检查说明了我们对公正过渡概念的实施，强调了设计公平的全系统政策的重要性，以及追求狭隘部门方法的陷阱。认真对待具有难以预测的影响的复杂系统的影响，对于各级治理的政策干预也有具体的影响。尤其是，

主要政策见解

• 如果向净零过渡造成或加剧社会不平等，它将既不可持续也不可信；如果人们认为过渡不公正，则很可能会引起强烈反对。

• 只有通过观察、实验和经验，才能出现前进的道路。

• 存在一系列政策工具来解决公正过渡问题。其中包括解决经济政策的社会和环境方面问题；确保干预措施适应当地情况；建立民主参与平台；以及公开透明的沟通。

• 创造就业并不能保证公正的结果，因为公正超越了就业条件。